/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210115.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, January 15, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 6
Headlines
ACM RESEARCH: Kain Hits Share Drop from Profit Malversation
ACM RESEARCH: Pawar Law Group Reminds of February 19 Deadline
ACUITY BRANDS: Continues to Defend Georgia Securities Class Suit
AETNA LIFE: Florida Court Narrows ERISA Claims in Prolow Suit
AFTRA RETIREMENT: Gilbert Sues Over Data Breach
AIR METHODS: Judge Allows Labor Class Action Suit to Proceed
ALL AMERICAN BAR: Faces Butler Suit Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages
ALLERGAN PLC: Gov't Asks Court to Step Into Price-Fixing Class Suit
AMERICAN BANK: Lyles Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
AMERICAN INCOME: $5.75-Mil. Settlement in Joh Suit Gets Final OK
AMERICAN SURETY: Plaintiffs Must Refile Price-Fixing Lawsuit
ANDOVER SUBACUTE: Patients Sue Over Substandard Care, Facilities
ARIZONA: D.H. Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Young Trans People
ARRAY BIOPHARMA: Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Investors Class
BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Loses Bid to Disqualify Class Reps in Testone
BATTELLE MEMORIAL: Court Certifies FLSA Class, Approves Settlement
BED BATH: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
BLACKBAUD INC: Graifman Suit Transferred to D.S.C.
BLACKBAUD INC: Zielinski Suit Transferred to D.S.C.
BLOOMFIELD, MI: Appeals Court Partly Affirms Judgment for Youmans
BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Claims in Covid-19 Refund Suit
BRIGHAM YOUNG: Utah District Court Refuses to Dismiss Hiatt Suit
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Solitary Confinement Class Action Certified
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Bell Class Suit Pending
CALLAWAY GOLF: Bushansky Says Topgolf Merger Deal Lacks Info
CBS TV: Harapeti Collective Action Wins Conditional Certification
CD PROJEKT: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of Feb. 22 Deadline
CD PROJEKT: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Class Action
CD PROJEKT: Loses 79% of Player Base Amid Class Action
CJ RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arriaga Suit Alleges
COLONIAL PARKING: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Abraha Suit
COLT RESOURCES: March 8 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
COMPASS GROUP: Chavez Sues Over Hospitality Staff's Unpaid Wages
CONAGRA BRANDS: Appeal in Briseno Settlement Still Pending
CONAGRA BRANDS: Settlement Reached in Negrete Class Action
CONAGRA BRANDS: West Palm Beach Firefighters' Suit Underway
COVIA HOLDINGS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of February 8 Deadline
ELDORA BOYS: Iowa Ordered to Pay Class Suit $4.9MM in Attorney Fees
EXPRESS FASHION: Chacon Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class & Subclasses
FERROVIAL SERVICES: Wu Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
FLAT RATE: Djurdjevich Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to 2nd Cir.
FLORIDA REGIONAL: Peng Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Investors
FORSYTHE FINANCIAL: Trial Unnecessary in McMurray Class Suit
FOUNDATION ENERGY: Shortchanges Royalty Payments, Heritage Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Tosses Warranty Claims in Transmission Suit
GENERALI US: Schrader Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
GOL LINHAS: Judge Appoints Pomerantz LLP to Lead Class Action
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Zhang Investor Reminds of February 16 Deadline
GOOGLE LLC: Alexander Alleges Android Mobile App Market Monopoly
GRIFFIN HOSPITAL: Judge Allows Insulin Pens Class Action to Proceed
HANNA ANDERSSON: Bradley Arant Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE: Denial of Arbitration in Garcia Suit Affirmed
HEALING TOUCH: Welch FLSA Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
HOME DEPOT: Davey Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. California
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Class Action Attorneys Seek $3.7MM Fees
IDEANOMICS INC: Kessler Topaz Needs to File Amendment Complaint
IRONMAN GROUP: Judge Rules in its Favor in Lawsuit Over Refunds
JA SOLAR: Altimeo, ODS Appeal Ruling in Securities Suit to 2nd Cir.
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Settlement Reached in Campbell Suit vs Tyco Fire
JOHNSON MARK: District of Utah Narrows Claims in Smith FDCPA Suit
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Zhang Investor Reminds of February 9 Deadline
KELLER WILLIAMS: Asks Court to Stay Ruling on Class Certification
LENOVO GROUP: Must Face Class Action Over Computer Device Defects
LENOVO US: Maryland Court Refuses to Dismiss Singh Consumer Suit
LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Menominee Indian Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
MARATHON REFINING: Parties Ask Court to Continue Class Cert. Dates
MARS WRIGLEY: Faces Class Action Over Dove Ice Cream Bars
MAYO CLINIC: Kuhr Seeks Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
MDL 2557: 5 Auto Repair Insurance Antitrust Suits Remanded
MDL 2570: Smith's IVC Filters Suit Transferred to S.D. Indiana
MERCEDES-BENZ: Attorneys Seek Dismissal of Sunroof Class Action
MHR FUND: Houman Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Manning Putative Class Suit Pending
NATIONAL CONGRESS: Bilek's Bid to Compel Discovery Partly Granted
NEW RESIDENTIAL: Borrowers Slam Predatory Mortgage Servicing
NEW YORK: Request for Judicial Intervention Filed in Espaillat Suit
NIKOLA CORP: Mersho Files 9th Circuit Appeal
NORTH MIAMI, FL: Faces Class Action Over Water Bill Overcharges
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: La Caria Class Settlement Wins Initial Approval
ONEPIECE WORK: Faces Beal Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
PENN CREDIT: Matthews Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
PINTEREST INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of January 22 Deadline
PIONEER NATURAL: Facing Gupta Putative Class Action
PRICESMART INC: Bid to Junk PERA Class Action Pending
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 8 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of March 8 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Vincent Wong Reminds of March 8 Deadline
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Dorman Hits Share Drop Over Failed Rewards Plan
REV GROUP: Consolidated Suit Over 2017 IPO Ongoing
RITE AID: Consolidated Stafford Putative Class Suit Underway
SAKS INC: All Appeal Proceedings in Shareholder Litigation Stayed
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Liebhard Discloses Class Action
SHUTTERFLY INC: Class Certification Briefing Extension Sought
SM ENERGY: Chieftain Royalty Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
SMG HOLDINGS: McCarthy Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
SOLARWINDS CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Discloses Securities Class Action
SOLARWINDS CORP: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
SOLARWINDS CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 5 Deadline
SOLARWINDS CORP: Proskauer Rose Discusses Securities Class Suit
STATE FARM: Manrique Files Suit in S.D. New York
SUPERCUTS INC: Shipman Files TCPA Suit in Minnesota
TC DEVA GROUP: Denied Hamlin Overtime Pay, Meal Breaks, Paystubs
TRICIDA INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
TRICIDA INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
TRITERRAS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 19 Deadline
TRITERRAS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of February 19 Deadline
TRITERRAS INC: Ferraiori Slams Share Price Drop
TRITERRAS INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of February 19 Deadline
TRUFFA PIZZERIA: Conditional Certification of FLSA Claim Sought
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Expert Discovery Ongoing in WCERS Suit
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Rite Aid Shareholders Securities Suit Underway
WALMART STORES: Lisowski's Bid to Remand Based on TIA Denied
WESTBRAE NATURAL: New York Court Dismisses Barreto Consumer Suit
WESTERN DIGITAL: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $7.75 Million
WORLD TRIATHLON: Wins Summary Judgment; Ellenwood Suit Dismissed
[*] Class Action Litigator Barbara Hart Joins Grant & Eisenhofer
[*] Seyfarth Discusses Workplace Class Action Litigation Trends
[*] Seyfarth Releases Workplace Class Action Litigation Report
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Defends Exposure Claims at Oct. 31
*********
ACM RESEARCH: Kain Hits Share Drop from Profit Malversation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Kain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ACM Research, Inc., David Hui Wang, Lisa
Feng and Mark A. McKechnie, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-09241 (N.D.
Cal., December 21, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
ACM, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures and
sells single-wafer wet cleaning equipment for enhancing the
manufacturing process and yield for integrated chips worldwide. It
markets and sells its products under the "Ultra C" brand name
through direct sales force and third-party representatives. David
Hui Wang, Lisa Feng and Mark A. Mckechnie are members of the ACM
Board.
Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that the company's revenue
and profits had been diverted to undisclosed related parties and
that it materially overstated its revenues and profits.
On this news, ACM's stock price fell $1.09 per share, or 1.52%, to
close at $70.79 per share on October 8, 2020.
Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired ACM securities. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
1200 Ashford Parkway, Suite 410
Atlanta, GA 30338
Tel: (770) 392-0090
Fax: (770) 392-0029
Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
ACM RESEARCH: Pawar Law Group Reminds of February 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group on Jan. 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of ACM
Research, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACMR) from March 6, 2019 through October 7,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for ACM Research, Inc. investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: the Company's revenue
and profits had been diverted to undisclosed related parties;
accordingly, the Company had materially overstated its revenues and
profits; and as a result, defendants' statements about ACM's
business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 19, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.
Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
Contact:
Vik Pawar, Esq.
Pawar Law Group
20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (917) 261-2277
Fax: (212) 571-0938
info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN]
ACUITY BRANDS: Continues to Defend Georgia Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acuity Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Acuity
Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D. Ga.).
On January 3, 2018, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against the company and certain of its officers on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock
between June 29, 2016 and April 3, 2017.
On February 20, 2018, a different shareholder filed a second class
action complaint in the same venue against the same parties on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's stock between October 15, 2015 and April 3, 2017.
The cases were transferred on April 30, 2018, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and
subsequently were consolidated as In re Acuity Brands, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D.
Ga.).
On October 5, 2018, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint, which supersedes the
initial complaints. The Consolidated Complaint is brought on behalf
of all persons who purchased our common stock between October 7,
2015 and April 3, 2017 and alleges that the company and certain of
its current and former officers/executives violated the federal
securities laws by making false or misleading statements and/or
omitting to disclose material adverse facts that (i) concealed
known trends negatively impacting sales of the company's products
and (ii) overstated the company's ability to achieve profitable
sales growth. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages,
costs, and attorneys' fees.
The company disputed the allegations in the complaints and intend
to vigorously defend against the claims. The company filed a motion
to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.
On August 12, 2019, the court entered an order granting the
company's motion to dismiss in part and dismissing all claims based
on 42 of the 47 statements challenged in the Consolidated Complaint
but also denying the motion in part and allowing claims based on
five challenged statements to proceed to discovery.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the Company
permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the District Court's
class certification order.
Acuity said, "Estimating an amount or range of possible losses
resulting from litigation proceedings is inherently difficult,
particularly where the matters involve indeterminate claims for
monetary damages and are in the stages of the proceedings where key
factual and legal issues have not been resolved. For these reasons,
we are currently unable to predict the ultimate timing or outcome
of or reasonably estimate the possible losses or a range of
possible losses resulting from the matters described above. We are
insured, in excess of a self-retention, for Directors and Officers
liability."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Acuity Brands, Inc. provides lighting and building management
solutions and services for commercial, institutional, industrial,
infrastructure, and residential applications in North America and
internationally. Acuity Brands, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
AETNA LIFE: Florida Court Narrows ERISA Claims in Prolow Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit captioned SHARON PROLOW, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
and AETNA, INC., Case No. 20-80545-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.).
Plaintiff Prolow, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, brings a four-count Complaint against the Defendants,
alleging violations of fiduciary obligations pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 1132(a)(3) (count one); improper denial of benefits
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B) (count two); a claim
for appropriate equitable relief (count three) and a claim for
statutory damages (count four).
The class action Complaint is brought on behalf of beneficiaries of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act plans. The Plaintiff
alleges that the plans are administered by the Defendants, and that
she and other similarly situated beneficiaries of the plans were
wrongfully denied Proton Beam Radiation Therapy ("PBRT"), a
treatment for breast cancer, due to the Defendants' policy of
denying this treatment as experimental or investigational.
According to the Complaint, the Defendants are ERISA fiduciaries.
The Defendants allegedly violated their fiduciary duties by
adopting and implementing a policy to deny coverage for PBRT. Due
to the breach of fiduciary duty, the Defendants were unjustly
enriched, and the Plaintiff seeks appropriate equitable relief.
The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint on these grounds: (1)
counts I and III are brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(3) which cannot be pled when a plaintiff's injury would be
adequately remedied under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B); (2)
count III is not a freestanding claim but a remedy; and (3) the
Complaint is a shotgun pleading, which impermissibly lumps the two
Defendants together.
The Plaintiff responds that (1) the 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3)
claim for breach of fiduciary duty can proceed alongside her claim
for wrongful denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(1)(B); (2) the breach of fiduciary duty claim is adequately
pled; (3) the remedies in count III are available under ERISA and
(4) the Complaint is not a shotgun pleading.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiff may plead claims under both
Sections 1132(a)(1)(B) and 1132(a)(3), if she pleads them in the
alternative under different theories of liability. If the Plaintiff
seeks a claim for benefits pursuant to Section 1132(a)(1)(B), the
claim brought pursuant to Section 1132(a)(3) must allege a
different theory of liability.
An example of this type of pleading can be found in the Eighth
Circuit case of Jones v. Am. Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 370
F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2004). In that case, the complaint included a
count for a denial of benefits under Section 1132(a)(1)(B) and a
count alleging that the defendant used a claims-handling process
that breached its fiduciary duties under Section 1132(a)(3) and
caused the plaintiff to suffer a loss of benefits. The Eighth
Circuit rejected the defendant's argument that these two claims
were duplicative because they both alleged "improper claims
handling." Instead, the Eighth Circuit explained that the Section
1132(a)(3) claim flowed from the process; specifically, the use of
claim examiners with conflicts of interest.
The Court believes that the Eighth Circuit case is instructive for
the Plaintiff going forward with an amended complaint in the
instant case, citing also Laird v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 263
F.Supp.3d 1231, 1124 (M.D. Ala. 2017).
In repleading, the Court says the Plaintiff must remedy her breach
of fiduciary duty claim as well. The Plaintiff's breach of
fiduciary duty claim fails to allege an independent fiduciary act
and rests on the implementation or application of a policy that
denies benefits. Any amended claim must articulate a breach of
fiduciary duty that does not rest on the assertion of unpaid
benefits.
The Plaintiff is reminded that, if the amended complaint seeks
monetary relief for unpaid benefits under Section 1132(a)(1)(B),
any additional equitable monetary relief sought under Section
1132(a)(3), must show different damages than the damage of unpaid
benefits. These equitable damages must relate to an additional,
separate, and actual loss stemming from the breach of fiduciary
duty, and not take the form of a monetary penalty to be imposed on
the Defendants unrelated to an actual loss or harm to the Plaintiff
and the putative class.
Assuming the Plaintiff can plead a breach of fiduciary claim
pursuant to Section 1132(a)(3), she may then seek equitable
remedies sought in count three that are consistent with this Order.
Equitable remedies are appropriate under Section 1132(a)(3), as a
catch-call provision for ERISA violations that Section 1132 does
not adequately remedy.
District Judge Kenneth A. Marra also opines that the Defendants are
correct that the Complaint impermissibly lumps the two Defendants
together. Each Defendant is alleged to be distinct legal entities,
but the Complaint does not adequately differentiate between the
Defendants nor inform each Defendant separately of the allegations
that apply to it. The Plaintiff is directed to replead the
Complaint and remedy these pleading deficiencies.
Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint is granted in part and denied in part. Counts one and
three are dismissed with leave to amend. The Amended Complaint will
be filed no later than Jan. 25, 2021. The Defendants' Motion to
Stay Discovery pending the Court's order on the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss is denied as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Jan. 4,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yylrw379 from
Leagle.com.
AFTRA RETIREMENT: Gilbert Sues Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------
Ron Gilbert, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AFTRA Retirement Fund and the
SAG-AFTRA Health Plan, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-10834 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 22, 2020), seeks to redress the unlawful and negligent
disclosure of over 57,000 individuals' personally identifiable
information, including their addresses, dates of birth, driver's
license numbers, state identification numbers, financial or banking
information, health insurance numbers, Social Security numbers and
email addresses that were compromised due to failure to implement
and maintain reasonable safeguards to protect such information.
Defendants suffered a massive data breach on or around October 28,
2019, allowing unauthorized individuals to access and obtain the
AFTRA Retirement's computer database.
AFTRA Retirement Fund is a retirement fund based in New York while
SAG-AFTRA is a health plan. Ron Gilbert is a member of both
SAG-AFTRA Health Plan and AFTRA. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
Sami Ahmad, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Tel: (914) 298-3281
Fax: (914) 824-1561
Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
sahmad@fbfglaw.com
- and -
Warren Postman, Esq.
KELLER LENKNER LLC
1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 400E
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (312) 948-8463
Email: wdp@kellerlenkner.com
AIR METHODS: Judge Allows Labor Class Action Suit to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Karlik, writing for Colorado Politics, reports that one
month after a Greenwood Village-based air ambulance company agreed
to pay $825,000 to settle allegations that it violated Federal
Aviation Administration regulations, a judge has greenlit a class
action lawsuit from employees claiming they were underpaid.
Flight paramedics and nurses in Michigan, New Mexico and Illinois
sued Air Methods Corporation in February 2019, alleging the company
failed to properly compensate them for overtime hours in accordance
with their states' wage laws. They attempted to bring the legal
action on behalf of employees in their same situation because they
"have been damaged, in large part by fraud," through Air Methods'
unjust enrichment, the federal complaint reads.
Air Methods paramedics and nurses work 24-hour shifts, with eight
hours of the day being "sleep time" that the company pays for. If
employees receive at least five hours of uninterrupted sleep, the
entire sleep time does not factor into overtime compensation. In
the three states covered under the lawsuit, there are roughly 634
such employees.
"I was required to be on base for my entire shift and was required
to be ready to respond promptly to emergencies that required air
ambulance services," stated Susan Brzezinski, who worked for nearly
six years in Michigan for Air Methods.
The plaintiffs deemed such a calculation a violation of wage laws.
Last year, 450 Air Methods employees in California benefited from a
$78 million settlement following similar claims involving overtime
and employee breaks.
That proceeding also resulted in a change to Air Methods' policies
that "put our teammates first," a spokesperson for the company
said.
In a Dec. 29 order, U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson certified
the lawsuit as a class action in Colorado, rejecting Air Methods'
argument that employees who spent part of their workweeks outside
of their home states were not covered by those states' wage laws.
"Air ambulance employees based in geographic areas where their
flights frequently cross state borders and whose hours in either or
both states alone would not exceed 40 in a week would lose the
protections that air ambulance employees who rarely or never cross
state lines have, even though their work weeks would be the same,"
he wrote. "AMC's argument, seemingly created in the effort to avoid
class certification, is not persuasive."
Jackson added that litigating claims on an individual basis would
be "impractical," given that compensation could be as low as $1,000
for some employees. The judge did, however, dismiss the plaintiffs'
claim of unjust enrichment against Air Methods, finding their wage
claims by themselves would provide the remedy they sought.
Following Jackson's order, Air Methods filed a motion to dismiss
the case. The Fair Labor Standards Act, the company argued,
"expressly allows employees who are on duty for 24-hours or more to
agree with their employer to exclude sleep periods of no more than
eight hours from hours worked, provided the employer furnishes
adequate sleeping facilities and the employee usually can enjoy an
uninterrupted night's sleep."
Air Methods also contended that each of the three states now
covered by the class action lawsuit appears to allow similar
exemptions of sleep time from wage calculations.
The plaintiffs, by contrast, alleged Air Methods was asking the
court to "make new law for the states" because their treatment of
sleep time was not explicitly in line with federal law.
Jackson has set a jury trial to begin on July 12.
In November, Air Methods agreed to pay $825,000 to settle claims
from the U.S. Department of Justice that it had "severely corroded"
pilot tubes on one of its aircraft. A Federal Aviation
Administration inspector discovered the defects, which have
implications for autopilot functionality. The company denied that
it was in violation of safety regulations or that the corroded
tubes presented a significant risk.
Air Methods conducts 65,000 transports per year, amounting to
approximately 150,000 flight hours. [GN]
ALL AMERICAN BAR: Faces Butler Suit Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALLA BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE ALL AMERICAN BAR ON FIRST AVENUE INC.
d/b/a AMERICAN BAR; 58 E. 34 TH ST. WINGS LODGE INC. d/b/a MURRAY
BAR; ROBERT J. GEROLA, JR.; & ROBERT O'ROURKE, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00164 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2021) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Butler was employed by the Defendants as bartender.
The All American Bar On First Avenue Inc. d/b/a American Bar is
engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Harrison, Esq.
HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
110 State Highway 35, 2 nd Floor
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (718) 799-9111
Facsimile: (718) 791-9171
E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com
ALLERGAN PLC: Gov't Asks Court to Step Into Price-Fixing Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the government asked a New Jersey federal court
on Jan. 6 to let it step into investors' proposed class action
against Allergan over claims the pharmaceutical titan took part in
a generic-drug price-fixing scheme, citing the need to ensure the
integrity of related criminal affairs. [GN]
AMERICAN BANK: Lyles Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Bank Systems
Inc. The case is styled as Larry Lyles, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. American Bank Systems Inc., Case
No. 5:21-cv-00023-HE (W.D. Okla., Jan. 11, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Account
Receivable.
American Bank Systems -- https://www.americanbanksystems.com/ --
has created advanced management systems for the financial industry
that help assess, monitor and lower compliance risk.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Molly E Brantley, Esq.
Tyler J Bean, Esq.
William B Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHEERWOOD
10205 N Pennsylvania Ave
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Fax: (405) 239-2112
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
AMERICAN INCOME: $5.75-Mil. Settlement in Joh Suit Gets Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California entered an order approving a
revised class action settlement and request for attorneys' fees,
costs, and service awards in the lawsuit titled DAVID JOH, et al.
v. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 18-cv-06364-TSH
(N.D. Cal.).
The Court grants final approval of the Class Action Settlement and
Release and grants the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and
Service Awards. Under the Revised SA, AIL will pay $5,750,000 into
the Settlement fund. The Court approves payment of 25% of the
Settlement fund, equal to $1,437,500, for attorneys' fees; payment
of $20,996 in litigation costs for Counsel; payment of $55,000 in
costs to the Settlement Administrator, KCC; and incentive awards of
$7,500 each to the named Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs in the action are former insurance salesperson
trainees or agents of American Life Insurance ("AIL"), who trained
and worked at locations in California. They allege that as
prospective AIL agents, trainees would undergo training that lasted
one week or more without earning a commission or otherwise being
paid. They allege that AIG promised prospective agents salaried
positions, but then hired them as commission-only employees, and
failed to pay or reimburse them while they worked as sales agents.
They allege that as trainees and agents they were not paid a
minimum wage or overtime pay, did not receive proper meal and rest
breaks, and had to pay their own work-related expenses. The
Plaintiffs also allege that agents were subject to "chargebacks,"
meaning that if they sold policies and those policies were later
cancelled by the customer, AIL illegally collected back commissions
from the agents earned wages.
On April 16, 2019, the counsel for the Plaintiffs and AIL
participated in an all-day mediation with an experienced mediator,
after which the mediator proposed an agreement which the Parties
accepted ("First SA"). On Aug. 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, which
the Court granted on Aug. 16, 2019. On Nov. 5, 2019, a number of
class members filed an objection to approval of the agreement. The
Court held a final approval hearing on Jan. 9, 2020, after which
the Court denied final approval.
In its order denying final approval, the Court found the
prerequisites of Rules 23(a), 23(b) 23(e)(1), Rule 23(e)(2) and
Rule 23(e)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure had been
met. However, things hit a snag when the Court examined the
objectors' arguments as to the equitable treatment of class
members. The First SA had a problem. The issue was with how the
settlement value would be distributed under the agreement: under
California law waiting time penalties accrue only once per employee
(in the case, trainee or agent), but the First SA would distribute
all of the settlement value pro rata based on the number of
workweeks an employee worked, and agent workweeks were far more
numerous than trainee workweeks.
As a result, even though the Parties estimated that roughly 50% of
maximum total liability of the Plaintiffs' claims was for
California waiting time penalties and even though trainees made up
25% of those claims, trainees would receive only roughly 2% of the
settlement value attributable to the waiting-time claims. In short,
agent workweeks would wash out trainees' claims to their portion of
the settlement value attributable to waiting time claims.
Accordingly, the Court found the First SA could not satisfy Rule
23(e)(2)(D).
After the Court's initial rejection of the First SA, the Plaintiffs
filed a Renewed Motion for Final Settlement Approval which included
additional briefing on the issue of waiting-time penalties. The
objector's filed an opposition to that motion, and the Court denied
it on April 15, 2020. Following that denial, the Parties met and
conferred to resolve the issues in the First SA, and they finalized
the terms of a revised settlement, the agreement currently before
the Court ("Revised SA"). The Plaintiffs submitted their Motion for
Final Settlement Approval on Sept. 18, 2020.
The Revised SA would dispose of all claims in the action, as well
as in two related cases: Hamilton v. American Income Life Insurance
Co., Case No. 3:18-cv-07535-KAW (N.D. Cal.), which claims, parties,
and counsel are incorporated into the operative complaint in the
instant case, and Golz v. American Income Life Insurance Co.,
2:18-cv-09879 (C.D. Cal.).
The Settlement Class comprises:
All individuals who trained to become and/or worked as sales
agents in California for Defendant during the last four
years prior to the filing of the original Complaint in Joh
and whose training and/or work began before August 16, 2019
(the date of preliminary approval of the earlier version of
this Settlement).
The Class Period is Sept. 12, 2014, through Aug. 16, 2019.
Under the Revised SA, AIL will pay $5,750,000 into the Settlement
fund. The Settlement value will be paid to approximately 7,015
class members. The net fund amount for distribution to class
members will be $4,127,531, after deductions for attorneys' fees
($1,437,500, or 25% of the fund), costs (up to $32,000),
incentive/service awards for named Plaintiffs ($22,500), PAGA
payment to the LWDA ($75,469), and administration costs (up to
$55,000). All class members are eligible to receive cash awards
from the fund without having to file a claim form. In other words,
checks will be sent to all class members unless they affirmatively
opt out of the Settlement.
The Counsel, as authorized by the SA, Section III(J), requests
approval for payment of 25% of the Settlement amount, or
$1,437,500, as payment for attorneys' fees. Pursuant to the
Settlement, any attorneys' fees or costs requested by the Counsel
but not approved by the Court will be distributed to class members.
The Counsel also requests $20,996.99 in litigation costs, less than
what is authorized by the SA. The Plaintiffs also request the Court
approves $55,000 in administration costs to KCC, and $7,500
service/incentive payments to each of the named Plaintiffs, for a
total of $22,500.
The Court orders the Defendant to fund the Settlement in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the Settlement
Administrator will make Settlement payments, approved attorneys'
fees and costs, and approved incentive award payments in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff and all
the Class Members are bound by the release provisions contained in
the Settlement Agreement.
The action is dismissed on the merits and with prejudice, subject
to the Court retaining jurisdiction to administer and enforce the
Settlement Agreement. The dismissal is without costs to any party
except as specifically provided in the Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 7, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3qwfo6q from Leagle.com.
AMERICAN SURETY: Plaintiffs Must Refile Price-Fixing Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that an antitrust
lawsuit over California bail bonds adequately alleged a
price-fixing scheme, but the plaintiffs must refile most of the
case to show the specific role played by each surety company, bail
agency, and trade group they targeted, a California federal judge
ruled.
Judge Jon S. Tigar let the proposed class action advance in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against
American Surety Co. -- the alleged "ringleader" -- and its
president, William Carmichael. [GN]
ANDOVER SUBACUTE: Patients Sue Over Substandard Care, Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Emerson, Estate of Albert C. Roberts by Brian Roberts,
Administrator Ad Prosequendum and Estate of Michele Desbiens by
Paul Desbiens, Administrator Ad Prosequendum, individually on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Andover Subacute Rehabilitation Center I, Andover Subacute
Rehabilitation Center II, Altitude Investments, Ltd, Alliance
Healthcare, Healthcare Services Group, John Does 1 through 100,
said names being fictitious and unknown persons, and ABC
Corporations 1 through 100, said names being fictitious and unknown
entities, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-20066 (D. N.J., December 21,
2020), seeks damages, economic, monetary and consequential damages,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, treble damages and/or
statutory damages, expenses and costs of suit, including reasonable
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of reasonable expenses and such
other relief as the court deems equitable, just and proper for
violation of the Nursing Home Reform Act.
Defendants are healthcare facilities, management companies, owners,
operators and associated businesses of nursing facilities while
Plaintiffs are former patients and relatives of patients. The
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants consistently provided their
residents with an inadequate, improper, and substandard level of
care causing them to suffer serious physical harm and emotional
distress. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Alina Habba, Esq.
HABBA MADAIO & ASSOCIATES LLP
1430 U.S. Highway 206, Suite 240
Bedminster, NJ 07921
Tel: (908) 869-1188
Email: ahabba@habbalaw.com
- and -
Benjamin Zakarin, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (845) 214-2827
Fax: (888) 749-7747
Email: zakarinb@thesultzerlawgroup.com
ARIZONA: D.H. Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Young Trans People
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.H., by and through his
mother, Janice Hennessy-Waller; and John Doe, by his guardian and
next friend, Susan Doe, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Jami Snyder, Director of the Arizona Health
Care Cost Containment System, in her official capacity, Case No.
4:20-cv-00335-SHR (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:
1. certifying the Proposed Class under Rule 23(b)(2) for
declaratory and injunctive relief:
"all transgender individuals under age 21 who are or will
be enrolled in Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System
(AHCCCS), have or will have a diagnosis of gender
dysphoria, and are seeking or will seek coverage for male
chest reconstruction surgery following a determination by
their respective health care providers that the procedure
is necessary to treat their gender dysphoria;"
2. designating themselves as class representatives; and
3. designating their undersigned attorneys at Perkins Coie
LLP; King & Spalding LLP, the National Center for Lesbian
Rights, and the National Health Law Program as class
counsel.
The Plaintiffs are a class of transgender young people in Arizona
who depend on the State for health insurance. Unfortunately,
Arizona refuses to provide the medically necessary and urgent
surgical care these transgender Medicaid recipients require, the
Plaintiffs say.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify themselves as a class so that
injunctive relief for all similarly situated transgender young
people in Arizona can be achieved. The Plaintiffs meet the
requirements of Rule 23(a), and class certification is particularly
appropriate when challenging a State's enforcement of a
health-related mandate.
AHCCCS is the state agency that administers Arizona's Medicaid
program. Medicaid was created to provide healthcare to individuals
who qualify by financial need.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 11,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/2XK3ue9at
no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Class, are:
Brent P. Ray, Esq.
Andrew J. Chinsky, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
353 N. Clark Street, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 995 6333
Facsimile: (312) 995 6330
E-mail: bray@kslaw.com
achinsky@kslaw.com
- and -
Daniel C. Barr, Esq.
Janet M. Howe, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788
Telephone: (602) 351 8085
Facsimile: (602) 648 7085
E-mail: dbarr@perkinscoie.com
jhowe@perkinscoie.com
DocketPHX@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Asaf Orr, Esq.
NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS
870 Market Street, Suite 370
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 392 6257
Facsimile: (415) 392 8442
E-mail: aorr@nclrights.org
- and -
Abigail K. Coursolle, Esq.
Catherine McKee, Esq.
NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
3701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 750
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (310) 204 6010
E-mail: coursolle@healthlaw.org
mckee@healthlaw.org
Attorneys for the Defendant, are:
Logan T. Johnston
JOHNSTON LAW OFFICES, P.L.C.
14040 N. Cave Creek Rd., Suite 309
Phoenix, AZ 85022
E-mail: ltjohnston@live.com
- and -
David Barton, Esq.
Kathryn Hackett King
BURNSBARTON PLC
2201 E. Camelback Road, Suite 360
Phoenix, AZ 85016
E-mail: david@burnsbarton.com
kate@burnsbarton.com
ARRAY BIOPHARMA: Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Investors Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER VOULGARIS, WENDELL
ROSE, and ROBERT NAUMAN, v. ARRAY BIOPHARMA INC., RON SQUARER,
VICTOR SANDOR, and JASON HADDOCK, Case No. 1:17-cv-02789-KLM (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class of investors in the common stock of
Array BioPharma, Inc. defined as;
"all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Array
securities between June 30, 2016 and March 17, 2017,
inclusive, and were damaged by the alleged corrective
disclosures;"
Excluded from the Class are: the Individual Defendants
herein; the officers and directors of Array and, at all
relevant times, members of their immediate families and
their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns;
and any entity in which the Individual Defendants have or
had a controlling interest;
2. appointing themselves as Class Representatives;
3. appointing Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Class Counsel; and
4. approving the Plaintiffs' proposed notice campaign.
Wendell Rose and Robert Nauman filed initial complaints on November
20, 2017 and November 28, 2017, respectively. The Plaintiffs then
filed the Consolidated Class Action Complaint on April 26, 2018.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on June 11, 2018. The
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss
on July 26, 2018. The Court denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on November 24, 2020 finding
that the failure to disclose the secondary data that negatively
impacted the drug candidate binimetinib's benefit, while disclosing
only that the study purportedly successfully met its endpoint, was
misleading. The Court rejected the Defendants' argument that
Plaintiffs failed to state particularized facts showing that the
omitted information about the negative secondary data was
material.
This case focuses on one of Array's drug candidates and,
importantly, the Defendants' statements about the clinical trial
Array conducted in support of Array's New Drug Application (NDA)
for the drug candidate. The particular drug candidate at issue is
binimetinib (MEK162). The clinical trial that the Defendants
discussed during the Class Period was a Phase 3 trial referred to
as "NEMO".
Array is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery,
development, and commercialization of targeted small molecule drugs
to treat patients afflicted with melanoma skin cancer.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 11,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qkf4t2
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
BERENS LAW LLC
2373 Central Park Boulevard, Suite 100
Denver, CO 80238
Telephone: (303) 861-1764
Facsimile: (303) 395-0393
E-mail: jeff@jberenslaw.com
- and -
Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
Alexander A. Krot III, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1101 30th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290
Facsimile: (212) 333-2121
E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com
aapton@zlk.com
akrot@zlk.com
BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Loses Bid to Disqualify Class Reps in Testone
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MICHAEL TESTONE, COLLIN SHANKS, and LAMARTINE
PIERRE, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and
the general public v. BARLEAN'S ORGANIC OILS, LLC, Case No.
19-CV-169 JLS (BGS) (S.D. Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California issued an order:
(A) denying the Defendant's motion:
(1) to Disqualify Named Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives;
(2) to Disqualify Plaintiffs' Attorneys as Class Counsel;
and
(3) for Stay of Action Pending Determination by Court;
(B) denying the Plaintiffs' Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions; and
(C) lifting stay.
The Defendant has manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold
various Barlean's brand coconut oil Products beginning in May 2008.
It sells its coconut oil products nationally at major retailers.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant misleadingly markets its
coconut oil Products as inherently healthy, and a healthy
alternative to butter and various cooking oils, despite that
coconut oil is actually inherently unhealthy, and a less healthy
option to these alternatives.
The Plaintiffs' counsel, Jack Fitzgerald, Esq., and Paul Joseph,
Esq., have brought several class actions asserting claims similar
to those in this action against other manufacturers or sellers of
coconut oil. Those cases include James Boswell et al. v. Costco
Wholesale Corp, et al., Case No. 8: 16-CV-00278-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal.,
filed Jan. 20, 2016), and Christine Cumming v. BetterBody Food &
Nutrition LLC, Case No. 37-2016-00019510-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct.,
filed June 9, 2016). The Costco Case settled on May 2, 2017, and
the BetterBody Case settled on Feb. 24, 2017. The administrator of
both settlements was Dahl Administration ("Dahl"). One of the named
Plaintiffs in this action, Collin Shanks, was previously a named
plaintiff in another coconut oil class action brought by Messrs.
Fitzgerald and Joseph, Collin Shanks, et al. vs. Jarrow Formulas,
Inc., Case No. CV 18-9437 (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 6, 2018).
On Jan. 24, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for a
putative class action alleging California and New York state law
claims based on the Defendant's allegedly misleading marketing of
its coconut oil products as healthy. On May 28, 2019, the action
was transferred to the Hon. Barry T. Moskowitz pursuant to Civil
Local Rule 40.1. However, the Parties filed a joint motion to
retransfer the case to the Court, which was granted.
On Sept. 4, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended
Complaint.
On May 13, 2020, the Defendant filed an ex parte motion to file
under seal one of the exhibits in support of the Disqualification
Motion. On May 15, 2020, the Court granted the motion. On May 18,
2020, the Defendant filed its Disqualification Motion, and on May
21, 2020, the Defendant filed the Amended Declaration of Marylin
Jenkins in Support of Defendant's Disqualification Motion. On May
26, 2020, the Defendant filed an ex parte motion to stay pending
resolution of the Disqualification Motion. Following briefing on
the motion to stay, the Court granted the motion. On June 19, 2020,
the Plaintiffs filed the instant Sanctions Motion.
As to the class representatives, the Defendant asserts that the
named Plaintiffs' misrepresentations in their depositions were
material, and as a result the named Plaintiffs lack credibility and
cannot adequately represent the class as required by Rule 23(a)(4)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, a named
representative's engagement in fraud or deceit makes him an
inadequate representative as a matter of law.
As to class counsel, the Defendant also argues that the Plaintiffs'
counsel should be disqualified from representing the putative class
due to their knowing violations of California Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.2 and 3.3. It claims that the Plaintiffs' counsel
represented Dahl in order "to do all they could to prevent the
class membership lists from being produced to Barlean's," showing
"they must have known that the three plaintiffs were in fact
members of the settlement class in the BetterBody case." The
Plaintiffs' counsel's conduct of allowing a case to proceed with
knowledge that plaintiffs have testified falsely misled both the
Defendant's counsel and the Court, and, therefore, taints the trial
or legal system.
The Court is wary of disqualifying either before the Plaintiffs
have had a full and fair opportunity to present their evidence and
arguments in their motion for class certification. Accordingly, it
denies the Defendant's Disqualification Motion, without prejudice
to renewing these arguments once Plaintiffs have had the
opportunity to carry their evidentiary burdens with regard to Rule
23.
The Plaintiffs filed their Sanctions Motion in response to
Defendant's Disqualification Motion, claiming that the
Disqualification Motion rests on misrepresentations of the record
and rank speculation following inadequate investigation.
The Court declines the Plaintiffs' request to sanction the
Defendant or Ms. Jenkins. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino opines
that the filing of the Disqualification Motion was not frivolous,
as there is precedent for the filing of such motions before a
motion for class certification (although the Court ultimately finds
the authorities deeming such motions premature prior to class
certification more persuasive), and the Defendant has a colorable
argument of standing to seek disqualification of Messrs. Fitzgerald
and Joseph.
Moreover, the Court does not find the positions undertaken in the
Disqualification Motion to be so foundationless or uninvestigated
as to be sanctionable. While the more fulsome excerpts from Mr.
Shanks' deposition transcript in the Jarrow Case provided by the
Plaintiffs in their Opposition to the Disqualification Motion
refute one of the arguments advanced by the Defendant in its
Disqualification Motion, Ms. Jenkins declared under oath that she
attempted to obtain the full transcripts, and she gamely admitted
her error when confronted with the testimony that contradicted her
argument. The Defendant then withdrew its argument premised on the
alleged misstatement. The Court does not find the Defendant's error
to rise to a sanctionable level.
Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' Sanctions Motion. It
likewise denies the Defendant's request for its costs in defending
the Sanctions Motion, which itself was not so baseless as to rise
to the level of frivolousness.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's
Disqualification Motion and denies the Plaintiffs' Sanctions
Motion. The docketing of the Order lifts the stay entered by the
Court pending resolution of the Disqualification Motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5zkcd2u from Leagle.com.
BATTELLE MEMORIAL: Court Certifies FLSA Class, Approves Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rothe, et al., v. Battelle
Memorial Institue, Case No. 1:18-cv-03179 (D. Colo.), the Hon.
Judge R. Brooke Jackson entered an order granting joint motion to
certify class and granting preliminary approval of settlement
agreement.
The suit alleges denial of overtime Compensation in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Battelle Memorial Institute is a private nonprofit applied science
and technology development company headquartered in Columbus,
Ohio.[CC]
BED BATH: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bed Bath & Beyond Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended November 28, 2020, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class action
suit headed by Kavin Bakhda, is pending.
A putative securities class action was filed on April 14, 2020
against the Company and three of its officers and/or directors
(Mark Tritton, Mary Winston (the Company's former Interim Chief
Executive Officer) and Robyn D'Elia (the Company's former Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer)) in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
The case, which is captioned Vitiello v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04240-MCA-MAH, asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from
October 2, 2019 through February 11, 2020.
The Complaint alleges that certain of the Company's disclosures
about financial performance and certain other public statements
during the putative class period were materially false or
misleading.
A similar putative securities class action, asserting the same
claims on behalf of the same putative class against the same
defendants, was filed on April 30, 2020. That case, captioned
Kirkland v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-05339-MCA-MAH, is also pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On August 14, 2020, the court consolidated the two cases and
appointed Kavin Bakhda as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Lead plaintiff and additional named plaintiff Richard Lipka filed
an Amended Class Action Complaint on October 20, 2020, on behalf of
a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from
September 4, 2019 through February 11, 2020. Defendants moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint on December 21, 2020.
Bed Bath & Beyond Incorporated is an American chain of domestic
merchandise retail stores. Bed Bath & Beyond operates many stores
in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Bed Bath & Beyond was
founded in 1971. It is currently part of the S&P 500 and Global
1200 Indices. The company is based in Union, New Jersey.
BLACKBAUD INC: Graifman Suit Transferred to D.S.C.
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRIAN GRAIFMAN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07600, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on December 30, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case
No. 3:20-cv-04512-JMC to the proceeding.
The case is brought over alleged personal injury claims and is
assigned to the Honorable Judge Michelle Childs.
Blackbaud, Inc. provides software and related services designed
specifically for non-profit organizations. The Company's products
and services enable non-profit organizations to increase donations,
reduce fundraising costs, improve communication with constituents,
manage their finances, and optimize internal operations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
Patricia Guerra, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT
& PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
camille@cglaw.com
- and -
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
Telephone: (845) 356-2570
E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Angelo Anthony Stio, III, Esq.
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP (PRINCETON)
301 Carnegie Center, Suite 400
Princeton, NJ 08543
Telephone: (609) 951-4125
Facsimile: (609) 452-1147
E-mail: angelo.stio@troutman.com
- and -
J Rutledge Young, III, Esq.
DUFFY AND YOUNG LLC
96 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 720-2044
Facsimile: (843) 720-2047
E-mail: ryoung@duffyandyoung.com
- and -
Robyn Rose English-Mezzino, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
301 Carnegie Center, Suite 400
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (609) 951-4193
Facsimile: (609) 452-1147
E-mail: Robyn.English-Mezzino@troutman.com
BLACKBAUD INC: Zielinski Suit Transferred to D.S.C.
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled KAREN ZIELINSKI, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07714, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on December 30, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case
No. 3:20-cv-04513-JMC to the proceeding.
The case is brought over alleged breach of contract and is assigned
to the Honorable Judge Michelle Childs.
Blackbaud, Inc. provides software and related services designed
specifically for non-profit organizations. The Company's products
and services enable non-profit organizations to increase donations,
reduce fundraising costs, improve communication with constituents,
manage their finances, and optimize internal operations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex Rafael Straus, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW
16748 McCormick St. 91436-1020
Encino, CA 91436-1020
Telephone: (917) 471-1894
E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Angelo Anthony Stio, III, Esq.
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP (PRINCETON)
301 Carnegie Center, Suite 400
Princeton, NJ 08543
Telephone: (609) 951-4125
Facsimile: (609) 452-1147
E-mail: angelo.stio@troutman.com
- and -
J Rutledge Young, III, Esq.
DUFFY AND YOUNG LLC
96 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 720-2044
Facsimile: (843) 720-2047
E-mail: ryoung@duffyandyoung.com
- and -
Robyn Rose English-Mezzino, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
301 Carnegie Center, Suite 400
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (609) 951-4193
Facsimile: (609) 452-1147
E-mail: Robyn.English-Mezzino@troutman.com
BLOOMFIELD, MI: Appeals Court Partly Affirms Judgment for Youmans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Michigan affirms in part and reverses in
part the trial court's ruling in favor of the Plaintiff in the
matter styled JAMILA YOUMANS, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF
BLOOMFIELD, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Case No. 348614
(Mich. App.).
In the certified class action, Plaintiff Youmans, who is the sole
class representative, challenged certain municipal utility rates
and ratemaking practices of Defendant Charter Township of
Bloomfield. The Defendant appeals as of right the trial court's
amended judgment, entered after a bench trial, that awarded the
Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class permanent injunctive relief and
more than $9 million in restitution. The Plaintiff has filed a
cross-appeal, challenging the trial court's refusal to award
damages for certain components of the Township's water and sewer
rates.
The Appellate Court affirms the trial court's ruling concerning the
Plaintiff's claims based upon a violation of Section 31 of the
Headlee Amendment, Const. 1963, Art. 9, Section 31; reverses its
judgment awarding monetary and equitable relief to the Plaintiff
and the Plaintiff Class; and remands for entry of a judgment of no
cause of action in favor of the Township.
The case arises out of the Plaintiff's challenge to various aspects
of the Township's water and sewer rates and its related ratemaking
methodology during the "class period," which commenced on April 21,
2010, for purposes of her assumpsit claims (i.e., six years before
she initiated the action) and on April 21, 2015, for purposes of
her Headlee claims (i.e., one year before she initiated the
action).
Following the parties' closing arguments, the trial court took the
matter under advisement and, on July 12, 2018, it announced its
opinion orally from the bench. The trial court ruled in favor of
the Township with regard to all of the Plaintiff's claims pursued
under Section 31 of the Headlee Amendment, entering a judgment of
no cause of action with respect to those claims. Generally, the
court reasoned that, under the test set forth in Bolt v City of
Lansing, 459 Mich. 152; 587 N.W.2d 264 (1998), the Plaintiff failed
to demonstrate that the disputed charges in the case constituted
unlawful tax exactions.
Turning to the Plaintiff's common-law claims for assumpsit for
money had and received, the trial court ruled partially in favor of
both parties. With regard to non-rate revenue and revenue
attributable to the Township's sewer-only customers (sewer-only
revenue), the trial court ruled in the Plaintiff's favor despite
repeatedly finding that in light of the Township's ratemaking
methodology -- which the trial court referred to as "abstruse,
recondite methodology" -- the trial court was unable to determine
whether the disputed rates were proportional to the associated
utility costs and, if not, what "damages" figure was warranted. The
trial court also chided the Township for failing to show its work,
indicating that, based on the record before the trial court, it was
not evident that the rates are just and reasonable.
According to the Appellate Court's Opinion, it was a common theme
in the trial court's decision. The court recognized that both Novi
v Detroit, 433 Mich. 414, 428-429; 446 N.W.2d 118 (1989), and
Trahey v Inkster, 311 Mich.App. 582, 594, 597-598; 876 N.W.2d 582
(2015), held that municipal utility rates are presumed to be
reasonable and that the plaintiff bears the burden of rebutting
that presumption when challenging such rates. But the trial court
indirectly criticized Trahey's reasoning, and it refused to rely on
the presumption of reasonableness in deciding this case.
The Appellate Court notes that the Plaintiff's strained
interpretation of Trahey would permit an order of restitution in
the case without any evidence or finding that the Township was
enriched, let alone excessively compensated, by collecting and
retaining the disputed utility charges.
On several occasions, the trial court explicitly found that the
Plaintiff had failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness or
demonstrate that the disputed rates were excessive in comparison to
the associated costs of providing the related water and sewer
services. Several of the testifying experts at trial specifically
indicated that, based on a review of the Township's audited
financial statements, its cash inflows and outflows over the
disputed period were proportional. Therefore, the Appellate Court
is not definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court made a
mistake when it found that the Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate
disproportionality in the rates.
In light of that finding, however, the trial court erred by
nevertheless ordering the Defendants to refund more than $9 million
to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class, the Appellate Court
holds. Given that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the
Township would be excessively (and thus unjustly) enriched by the
retention of such funds, the trial court should not have ordered
the refund that it did.
The Appellate Court also concludes that the trial court abused its
discretion by granting the Plaintiff a permanent injunction
requiring the Township to document its ratemaking efforts in a
specified fashion. As noted, the Appellate Court finds no basis to
disturb the trial court's finding that plaintiff failed to
demonstrate that the disputed rates were actually disproportionate
to the underlying utility costs. Consequently, the Plaintiff also
failed to demonstrate that the injunctive relief ordered by the
trial court was necessary to avert irreparable harm.
The parties disagree whether the trial court's use of its equitable
powers was proper. As Appellant, the Township argues that, having
found that the Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the
disputed rates were disproportionate to the underlying costs, the
trial court erred by disregarding the presumption that those rates
were reasonable. The Township also argues that the trial court
erred by awarding the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class both the
monetary award and permanent injunctive relief that it did.
Contrastingly, by way of the Plaintiff's cross-appeal, she contends
that the trial court should have awarded additional refunds related
to the disputed other post-employment benefits ("OPEB"), Public
Fire Protection ("PFP") and rent charges.
The Appellate Court agrees with the Township that the trial court
erred by failing to apply the presumption that the disputed rates
were reasonable and abused its discretion by granting the Plaintiff
permanent injunctive relief despite her failure to demonstrate that
doing so was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
As cross-appellant, the Plaintiff contends that the trial court
erred by failing to recognize that the disputed PFP charges are
unlawful under the Revenue Bond Act of 1933 (RBA), MCL 141.101 et
seq. Specifically, she argues that the Township receives "free" PFP
services, in contravention of MCL 141.118(1), because the
Township's water and sewer fund, not its general fund, pays for
those services by incorporating the PFP expenses into the disputed
utility rates.
Assuming, without deciding, that the RBA is applicable in the case,
that the Plaintiff is entitled to pursue a private cause of action
seeking damages for violation of the RBA (which is an issue that
she has failed to brief), that such a private action constitutes a
valid end-around of the presumption-of-reasonableness standard
discussed in Trahey and Novi, and that the plaintiff is correct
that it would violate MCL 141.118(1) if the Township were to fail
to pay for its PFP services in the manner alleged, the Plaintiff's
argument is nevertheless unavailing, the Appellate Court opines.
The Plaintiff ignores the fact that, in the trial court's amended
judgment, it expressly found that the Township did, in fact, pay
for the disputed PFP expenses by way of in-kind remuneration
provided to the water and sewer fund. In her brief as
cross-appellant, she fails to explicitly argue that the trial
court's finding in that regard was clearly erroneous, and the
Appellate Court discerns no basis for disturbing it.
The Appellate Court also concludes that the Plaintiff's assumpsit
claims under MCL 123.141(3) are not viable in light of the
presumption of reasonableness discussed in Trahey and Novi. Hence,
it rejects the Plaintiff's instant claim of error.
The Plaintiff further argues that the trial court erred or clearly
erred by holding that the disputed OPEB, county drain, and PFP
charges were not unlawful exactions under Section 31 of the Headlee
Amendment. The Appellate Court disagrees.
In the case, the Appellate Court notes, it is undisputed that the
contested rates are assessed to fund the operational and capital
expenses of the Township's water and sewer system, which serves the
primary function of providing water and sewer services to the
Township's ratepayers. On the strength of the entire record, the
Appellate Court holds that the Township's act of raising a prudent
level of both revenue and capital and operational reserves through
the disputed rates -- including revenue to fund its OPEB
obligations, the costs of providing fire protection services to the
community, expenses related to the county storm-drain system, and
necessary capital improvements -- primarily serves valid regulatory
purposes.
The Appellate Court concludes, among other things, that use of the
Township's water and sewer services cannot be viewed as "voluntary"
for purposes of the inquiry under Bolt v City of Lansing, 459 Mich.
152; 587 N.W.2d 264 (1998). If a charge is "effectively
compulsory," it is not voluntary. With the exception of those
sewer-only customers, who have elected not to have a meter
installed to track their actual well-water usage, it is technically
true that the Township's water and sewer customers can avoid paying
the variable portion of the disputed rates by refusing to use any
water. But the fixed portions of those rates constitute flat-rate
charges like those in Bolt, 459 Mich at 157 n 6, and such flat
rates can only be avoided by not being a utility customer in the
first instance.
On balance, the Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden of
demonstrating that the disputed rates are impermissible taxes,
rather than user fees, for purposes of Headlee Section 31. The
first and second Bolt factors clearly favor the conclusion that the
disputed charges are proper user fees, and with regard to the third
factor, "the lack of volition does not render a charge a tax,
particularly where the other criteria indicate the challenged
charge is a user fee and not a tax." Therefore, the Appellate Court
states that the trial court did not err by entering a no-cause
judgment against the Plaintiff with regard to her Headlee claims.
The trial court ruling is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
the case is remanded to the trial court for entry of a judgment of
no cause of action in the Township's favor. The Appellate Court
states it does not retain jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 7, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yydrcztx from Leagle.com.
BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Claims in Covid-19 Refund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts allows in
part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
consolidated matter titled IN RE BOSTON UNIVERSITY COVID-19 REFUND
LITIGATION, Case No. 20-10827-RGS (D. Mass.).
Plaintiffs Julia Dutra, Gabriella Dube, Shakura Cox, Valaauina
Silulu, Natalia Silulu, Olivia Bornstein, and Venus Tran filed the
putative class action against Defendant Trustees of Boston
University ("BU"). By way of a Second Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint ("SCAC"), they allege that BU breached an express
or implied contract with its students (Counts I and II,
respectively) or, alternatively, unjustly enriched itself at its
students' expense (Count III) when it retained tuition and fees
collected for the Spring semester of 2020 despite ceasing in-person
instruction and closing its on-campus facilities and resources in
March 2020. BU moves to dismiss all claims pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
BU is a university located in Boston, Massachusetts. It is the
fourth largest private, not-for-profit, residential research
university in the United States, with over 35,000 students across
over 300 programs of study. The Plaintiffs are undergraduate and
graduate students, who enrolled in classes at BU during the Spring
semester of 2020.
According to the SCAC, the Plaintiffs entered into a contractual
agreement with BU to pay tuition and fees for the Spring semester
of 2020 in exchange for, inter alia, access to campus facilities
and activities, in-person instruction in a physical classroom, and
room and board. In March 2020, in-person classes were cancelled and
brought online. BU closed many of its on-campus resources.
On April 3, 2020, BU agreed to refund a prorated portion of
students' room and board fees dating from the March 22, 2020
closing of the residential facilities. It refused, however, to
offer students a refund for tuition or any other semester fees.
The Plaintiffs seek through the putative class action to obtain a
refund for a portion of these payments. They assert three claims on
behalf of "all people who paid BU tuition, fees and/or room and
board for in-person educational service, programs, access, and room
and board that BU failed to provide during the Spring Term, and
whose tuition and/or fees have not been refunded": breach of an
express contract (Count I); breach of an implied contract (Count
II); and unjust enrichment (Count III).
Counts I and II assert claims for breach of contract (express and
implied, respectively) relative to the payment of tuition and fees
for the Spring semester of 2020. BU argues that plaintiffs have
failed to state a claim because they have articulated no legal
basis for any contractual right to in-person instruction. The
Plaintiffs respond that the contractual right to in-person
instruction derives from their payment of tuition, which
purportedly gave them the opportunity to register for courses, and
from representations in BU's course registration materials, which
implied that the Plaintiffs would receive traditional, face-to-face
instruction at physical locations on campus for each of the courses
for which they registered.
Drawing all inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, the Court cannot,
as a matter of law, say that no student could have reasonably
expected that paying the tuition charged for the Spring semester of
2020 and registering for on-campus courses would entitle them to
in-person instruction, citing Bleiler v. Coll. of Holy Cross, 2013
WL 4714340 (D. Mass. Aug. 26, 2013). It needs the benefit of
further factual development of the contractual claims to resolve
the issue on the merits. Accordingly, it denies the motion to
dismiss the portions of Counts I and II premised on payment of
tuition.
The portions of Counts I and II premised on the failure to provide
access to on-campus facilities and resources present a closer
question. The Plaintiffs allege that their payment of certain fees
entitled them to access the referenced facilities and services.
While such broad language would ordinarily weigh against a finding
of a contractual right to access any particular on-campus
facilities or resources, the Court finds it significant that the
descriptions in the case also refer to specific activities
occurring at specific locations (e.g., services at the George
Sherman Union, East Campus Student Service Center, Residence Halls
and other such student support spaces, or operations at the student
Health Services clinic at 881 Commonwealth Avenue as well as the
Fitness & Recreation Center and their satellite operations), and
that BU "dramatically curtailed" or no longer provided these
activities after March 22, 2020.
Under the circumstances, the Court cannot say, as a matter of law,
that the Plaintiffs could not have reasonably expected that their
payment of mandatory fees would grant them access to at least some
of the on-campus facilities and resources shut down by BU on March
22, 2020. Further factual development is needed to resolve the
issue on the merits. The Court will, therefore, deny the motion to
dismiss the portions of Counts I and II premised on the failure to
provide access to on-campus facilities and resources.
As to the complaint portions seeking a refund on room and board
costs for the week between March 15, 2020, and March 22, 2020, the
Court determines that the Plaintiffs have not shown any plausible
entitlement to relief. BU does not appear to dispute that it had a
contractual obligation to provide housing for students during this
week. Instead, it asserts that the Plaintiffs have not shown any
breach of the referenced obligation.
The Court agrees. BU may have encouraged its students vacate
housing sooner than March 22, 2020 if possible, but it did not
require any student to vacate on-campus housing prior to this date.
And the Court declines to find that encouragement alone, without
any indication BU acted to prevent the Plaintiffs from returning to
their housing during the relevant period, is sufficient to
establish constructive eviction. Accordingly, it grants the motion
to dismiss the portions of Counts I and II premised on the failure
to provide room and board during the week between March 15, 2020,
and March 22, 2020.
Count III asserts a claim of unjust enrichment. BU argues that the
Plaintiffs cannot, as a matter of law, state a claim for unjust
enrichment because they have an adequate alternative remedy
available, namely, a breach of contract action. BU alternatively
suggests that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish the existence
of unjust circumstances warranting application of an equitable
remedy. The Court agrees as to the portions of the Plaintiffs'
claim premised on the failure to provide room and board during the
week of March 15, 2020, through March 22, 2020. As noted, the
Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled that they were constructively
evicted from their housing during this period, and they do not
assert any other basis to find the existence of unjust
circumstances. The Court, accordingly, dismisses these portions of
Count III.
The Court declines to dismiss the remaining portions of Count III,
however. The Plaintiffs allege that they reasonably expected to
receive in-person instruction and access to on-campus facilities
and resources in return for payment of tuition and fees and that BU
failed to provide these services. Because the Court cannot say, as
a matter of law, that no reasonable juror taking these allegations
as true could determine that BU's failure to refund tuition and
fees was unjust under the circumstances, it declines to dismiss the
portions of Count III premised on the failure to provide in-person
instruction or access to on-campus facilities and resources.
For these reasons, the motion to dismiss is allowed in part and
denied in part. Specifically, the Court dismisses the portions of
Counts I, II, and III premised on the failure to provide room and
board for the week between March 15, 2020, and March 22, 2020. The
portions of Count I, II, and III premised on the failure to provide
in-person instruction and the closure of on-campus facilities and
resources, however, survive the Defendant's motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 7,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx9puff6 from
Leagle.com.
BRIGHAM YOUNG: Utah District Court Refuses to Dismiss Hiatt Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CHASE HIATT v. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, Case
No. 1:20-CV-00100-TS (D. Utah), the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah issued a memorandum decision and order denying the
Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The Plaintiff was an undergraduate student at BYU during the
relevant semesters, and his complaint presents a proposed class
action on behalf of himself and BYU students, who paid tuition for
any semester or term affected by COVID-19. Undergraduate students
at BYU paid between $2,895 and $5,970 in tuition, and graduate
students paid between $430 to $860 per credit hour in tuition for
the Winter 2020 semester. The students also paid mandatory fees in
addition to their tuition.
According to the Complaint, BYU agreed to provide an in-person and
on-campus live education as well as the services and facilities to
which the Mandatory fees they paid pertained" in return. The
Plaintiff supports the alleged agreement by referencing BYU's
website, promotional materials, and acceptance letters that market
and promote the in-person education and campus services BYU
provides. Then, during the Winter 2020 semester, BYU unexpectedly
changed its in-person classes to online classes and stopped
providing many oncampus services to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Despite these changes, BYU has not refunded any part of the tuition
or mandatory fees it assessed for the Winter semester or any other
semester affected by COVID-19.
The Plaintiff brought the Complaint against BYU for breach of
contract and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment because of the
changes BYU made due to COVID-19.
BYU seeks dismissal of the Plaintiff's breach of contract and
unjust enrichment claims. Both of the claims are governed under
Utah law.
Though BYU argues that the Complaint is lacking, the Plaintiff
sufficiently alleges facts to support the breach of contract claim,
District Judge Ted Stewart holds. The Plaintiff supports the
existence of a contract with reference to BYU's website,
promotional and marketing materials, and his acceptance letter.
The Complaint also alleges facts supporting elements for a breach
of contract claim. According to the Complaint, BYU announced that
it would cancel in-person classes and begin offering all classes
online on March 13, 2020. It is a breach of the alleged agreement
in which BYU agreed to provide in-person education and services,
Judge Stewart opines. Next, the Complaint states that the Plaintiff
performed his obligation by paying the tuition and fees. Finally,
the Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has damages from the
breach of contract because he did not receive the valuable
education and other services for which he paid. Therefore, the
Plaintiff has stated sufficient facts to satisfy the liberal
requirements to plead a claim for breach of contract under Rule
8(a).
BYU also argues the Court should grant its Motion because, even if
it did breach the contract, BYU is excused from the alleged
obligation because it is impracticable for BYU to provide in-person
education and services during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Utah,
impracticability is a defense against a breach of contract claim.
Even if it took judicial notice of the governmental orders, the
Court could not grant the Motion on the impracticability defense.
It is essential to know which party bears the risk of the agreement
before determining whether impracticability is a valid defense. The
Court says that the facts the Plaintiff references in the Complaint
do not provide a clear answer to whether he or BYU would bear the
risk either. Therefore, BYU's defense is not clear on the face of
the Complaint. Further, even if it was impossible for BYU to
provide in-person education, BYU could still be required to provide
restitution. For these reasons, the Court will not dismiss the
breach of contract claim.
BYU also argues that the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim should
be dismissed because the contract between him and BYU precludes the
unjust enrichment claim. Rule 8 explicitly states that complaints
can include claims for "relief in the alternative," but "where an
express contract covering the subject matter of the litigation
exists, recovery for unjust enrichment is not available."
While the Court agrees that the Plaintiff cannot ultimately succeed
on both the breach of contract claim and the unjust enrichment
claim, the Plaintiff sufficiently alleges these two claims in the
alternative, and both claims can survive the Motion. Though some
decisions in Utah courts and in the district have granted motions
to dismiss unjust enrichment claims under Utah law because of the
existence of a contract, those cases are distinguishable from the
case.
Specifically, those cases all had obvious, express, written
contracts between the parties and no dispute about the
enforceability of those contracts. But here, the Plaintiff's
Complaint does not necessarily allege an express contract. The
facts and evidence may establish an express contract, an
implied-in-fact contract, or no enforceable contract between the
parties. Thus, the unjust enrichment claim is not precluded at this
stage.
The Plaintiff also alleges that he conferred a benefit on BYU when
he paid tuition and mandatory fees for the relevant semesters and
terms. BYU knew about the benefit and allowed Plaintiff to register
for classes and receive campus services. BYU then retained the full
tuition and mandatory fees after BYU cancelled in-person classes
and campus services, which is allegedly inequitable because the
Plaintiff did not receive the valuable in-person education or the
services and facilities for which he paid. Therefore, the Court
will not dismiss the unjust enrichment claim.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
Jan. 7, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyb9c68l from
Leagle.com.
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Solitary Confinement Class Action Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Nielsen, writing for Prince George Citizen, reports that a
legal action brought by a former Prince George Regional
Correctional Centre inmate against the provincial government over
the use of solitary confinement in B.C.'s jails has gained
certification as a class action proceeding.
Naveah North, formerly known as Cody Alan Cragg, is the lead
representative in the action filed on behalf of inmates in
provincial institutions who had been in solitary confinement for at
least 15 consecutive days or in spite of suffering from a mental
illness.
While in custody at PGRCC, North spent seven months in confinement
in response to self-harming conduct and then was in a medical
observation unit for 16 months where she was in lockup 23 hours per
day.
North struggled with mental illness since she was a teenager,
according to a summary provided in B.C. Supreme Court Justice
Nathan Smith's decision to certify the action. In 2014, while at
PGRCC, she was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder,
obsessive compulsive disorder, anti-social personality disorder,
polysubstance disorder and difficulty identifying and expressing
emotions.
"The plaintiff has also filed affidavits from six other current
inmates who say they have spent lengthy periods of time in
segregation or solitary confinement," Smith writes. "Their
descriptions include: segregation cells filthy with blood and
feces, sleep deprivation from lights being left on all night, and
being allowed as little as half an hour a day outside their cell.
Ongoing problems various affiants attribute to their time in
solitary confinement include depression, post-traumatic stress
disorder, and aggravation of pre-existing mental health
conditions."
In finding that the pleading disclose a cause of action, Smith
noted that North relies on three class actions in Ontario that
raise similar assertions and have not only been certified but have
proceeded to summary judgment on their merits and decided in favour
of the plaintiffs. One of them was on behalf of inmates in the
provincial system and yielded a global award of $30 million, Smith
also noted.
Lawyers representing the provincial government took issue with the
assertion that "solitary confinment" is used in B.C. jails. In
answer, Smith said the term could be replaced with "separate
confinement and/or segregation."
Provincial government lawyers also took issue including inmates who
had been in confinement as far back as April 18, 2005 as members of
the class, citing a two-year limitation period. But Smith said
there can be an exception for a person under a disability such as
mental illness and so incapable of managing their affairs.
Counsel for the province also said inmates in segregation may not
necessarily be alone and, in some cases, are double bunked. They
also assert that North and the others who provided affidavits
shared a cell with another inmate for at least part of the time
they were in segregation and so, were provided with "meaningful
human contact."
They also said inmates health records, including any mental health
diagnoses, are kept separate from correctional records and
correctional officials have no access to them.
Craig Jones, a law professor at Thompson Rivers University, said
that while the matter can still be taken to trial, where the judge
must decide on the balance of probabilities whether the provincial
government was in the wrong, he doubts it will go that far.
"Practically speaking, I'm going to guess that less than one per
cent of class actions actually go to trial," Jones said. "After
certification, they're almost always settled, so a certification
win is a big deal."
North is claiming the province's actions were a violation of
inmates' Charter rights, which Jones said "might be a little bit of
the wave of the future."
"You know, 10 years ago people would've probably told you that
cases like this probably wouldn't have had a hope in heck without
showing some sort of malice on the part of the government but it's
a bit of a different world."
If a settlement is reached, Jones said it will be made public
because it must be approved by a judge.
Although there were stints at the Colony Farm forensic psychiatric
hospital in Port Coquitlam, North spent much of four years at
PGRCC. In May 2018, she was sentenced to a further four years in a
federal institution for setting a house on fire in Bear Lake and
for two attacks at Colony Farm, one of which led to a conviction
for attempted murder.
Given a lengthy criminal record that included previous convictions
for attempted murder and arson, Crown counsel argued in favour of
declaring North a dangerous offender, which can carry a
indeterminate sentence of imprisonment. But the sentencing judge
found North had taken significant steps to turn her life around
although she remained subject to a 10-year long-term supervision
order once her time behind bars had been served. [GN]
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Bell Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended November 28, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, Bell et al. v. Cal-Maine
Foods et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-461, is pending.
On April 30, 2020, the Company was named as one of several
defendants in Bell et al. v. Cal-Maine Foods et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-461, in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
The defendants include numerous grocery stores, retailers,
producers, and farms.
Plaintiffs assert that defendants violated the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices—Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) by allegedly
demanding exorbitant or excessive prices for eggs during the
COVID-19 state of emergency.
Plaintiffs request certification of a class of all consumers who
purchased eggs in Texas sold, distributed, produced, or handled by
any of the defendants during the COVID-19 state of emergency.
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Company and other defendants from
selling eggs at a price more than 10% greater than the price of
eggs prior to the declaration of the state of emergency and damages
in the amount of $10,000 per violation, or $250,000 for each
violation impacting anyone over 65 years old.
On December 1, 2020, the Company and certain other defendants filed
their motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' first amended class action
complaint. The court has not ruled on this motion to dismiss.
Management believes the risk of material loss related to this
matter to be remote.
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., incorporated on September 10, 1969, is a
producer and marketer of shell eggs in the United States. The
Company operates through the segment of production, grading,
packaging, marketing and distribution of shell eggs. The Company
offers shell eggs, including specialty and non-specialty eggs. The
company was founded in 1957 and is based in Jackson, Mississippi.
CALLAWAY GOLF: Bushansky Says Topgolf Merger Deal Lacks Info
------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY; OLIVER G.
BREWER, III; SAMUEL H. ARMACOST; SCOTT H. BAXTER; JOHN C. CUSHMAN,
III; LAURA J. FLANAGAN; RUSSELL L. FLEISCHER; JOHN F. LUNDGREN;
ADEBAYO O. OGUNLESI; LINDA B.SEGRE; and ANTHONY S. THORNLEY,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00034-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal., Jan. 8,
2021) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against Callaway Golf
Company ("Callaway" or the "Company") and the members of Callaway's
Board of Directors (the "Board" or the "Individual Defendants") for
their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), seeking to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Callaway will merge with Topgolf
International, Inc. ("Topgolf") through Callaway's wholly owned
subsidiary 51 Steps, Inc. ("Merger Sub") (the "Proposed
Transaction").
According to the complaint, on October 27, 2020, Callaway and
Topgolf issued a joint press release announcing that they had
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated October 27, 2020
(the "Merger Agreement") to merge Callaway with Topgolf. Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, Callaway will issue approximately 90
million shares of common stock to the stockholders of Topgolf,
which will be calculated using an exchange ratio (the "Exchange
Ratio") based on (i) an equity value of Topgolf of approximately
$1.986 billion, and (ii) a price per share of Callaway common stock
fixed at $19.40 (the "Merger Consideration"). Upon completion of
the merger, Callaway shareholders will own approximately 51.5% and
Topgolf shareholders (excluding Callaway) will own approximately
48.5% of the combined company on a fully diluted basis. The
Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $2 billion.
On November 24, 2020, Callaway filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement (as amended on January 5, 2020, the "Registration
Statement") with the SEC. The Registration Statement, which
recommends that Callaway stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) the financial projections for
Callaway and the pro forma company; (ii) the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor,
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("Goldman"); and (iii) Goldman's potential
conflicts of interest.
The Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading
Registration Statement in violation of the Exchange Act, the suit
says.
Callaway Golf Company designs, develops, and markets golf clubs.
The Company manufactures titanium drivers, fairway woods, irons,
wedges, and various putters. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Boulevard #725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
CBS TV: Harapeti Collective Action Wins Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SILVA HARAPETI, v. CBS
TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-20961-KMW (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams entered an order:
1. affirming and adopting the Magistrate Judge Lauren
Fleischer Louis' report and recommendation;
2. granting in part the Plaintiff's corrected motion for
conditional certification and facilitation of Court-
Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);
3. conditionally certifying a collective action limited to:
"similarly situated employees who worked as Freelance
Television Journalists or Producers for CBS Television at
WFOR-TV in Miami in the three years preceding the filing
of this action;"
4. approving the Parties' amended proposed class notice;
5. directing the Defendants, within 15 days of this Order, to
produce the name, last known address, telephone number,
and email address of all potential plaintiffs to the
third-party administrator responsible for administering
the notice process;
5. directing the third-party administrator to send the
approved class notice to each potential class member by
both U.S. Mail and by email;
6. allowing 60 days from the date the notices initially
mailed for Potential plaintiffs to file a Consent to
Become Opt-in Plaintiff;
7. posting a copy of the approved class notice at WFOR-TV'S
business locations in Miami, Florida;
The Court said, "The Report recommends that Plaintiffs' motion be
granted in part. The Parties did not file objections to the Report
and the time to do has now passed. The Court has independently
reviewed Judge Louis' Report and the record."
CBS Television Stations is a division of the CBS Entertainment
Group unit of ViacomCBS that owns and operates a group of American
television stations.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qisYvr at no extra charge.[CC]
CD PROJEKT: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of Feb. 22 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired CD Projekt S.A. ("CD Projekt" or
the "Company") (OTC: OTGLF, OTGLY) securities between January 16,
2020 and December 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). CD
Projekt investors have until February 22, 2021 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/3son1Py to participate.
CD Projekt develops and distributes videogames worldwide. Cyberpunk
2077 is an "open world, narrative-driven role-playing game" that
was slated to be released in April 2020.
On December 10, 2020, CD Projekt launched Cyberpunk 2077, and
consumers discovered that the Current-Generation Console versions
of the game were filled with errors and difficult to play. One
article stated the game "performs so poorly that it makes combat,
driving, and what is otherwise a master craft of storytelling
legitimately difficult to look at."
On December 14, 2020, the Company held a conference call during
which the joint Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Adam Michal
Kicinski admitted that CD Projekt "underestimated the scale and
complexity of the issues" and "ignored the signals about the need
for additional time to refine the game on the base last-gen
consoles."
Following the game's release, the price of CD Projekt's American
Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") fell $6.93, or 25% over three
consecutive trading sessions to close at $20.75 per ADR on December
14, 2020, thereby damaging investors. Over the same period, the
price of the Company's common shares fell $21.65, or 20.1%, to
close at $86.00 on December 14, 2020, thereby damaging investors.
On December 18, 2020, Sony and Microsoft issued statements offering
refunds for those who had purchased Cyberpunk 2077, citing "a wave
of complaints about the long-awaited title."
On this news, the price of the Company's ADRs fell $3.44, or 15.8%,
to close at $18.50 per ADR on December 18, 2020. The price of the
Company's common share price fell $9.20, or 10.45%, to close at
$78.80 on December 18, 2020, thereby damaging investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually unplayable on the
current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems due to an enormous
number of bugs; (2) as a result, Sony would remove Cyberpunk 2077
from the Playstation store, and Sony, Microsoft and CD Projekt
would be forced to offer full refunds for the game; (3)
consequently, CD Projekt would suffer reputational and pecuniary
harm; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased CD Projekt securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than February 22, 2021 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased CD Projekt securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
CD PROJEKT: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased CD
Projekt S.A. ("CD Projekt" or the "Company") (OTC: OTGLF, OTGLY)
securities between January 16, 2020 and December 17, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). CD Projekt investors have until
February 22, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their CD Projekt investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
CD Projekt develops and distributes videogames worldwide. Cyberpunk
2077 is an "open world, narrative-driven role-playing game" that
was slated to be released in April 2020.
On December 10, 2020, CD Projekt launched Cyberpunk 2077, and
consumers discovered that the Current-Generation Console versions
of the game were filled with errors and difficult to play. One
article stated the game "performs so poorly that it makes combat,
driving, and what is otherwise a master craft of storytelling
legitimately difficult to look at."
On December 14, 2020, the Company held a conference call during
which the joint Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Adam Michal
Kicinski admitted that CD Projekt "underestimated the scale and
complexity of the issues" and "ignored the signals about the need
for additional time to refine the game on the base last-gen
consoles."
Following the game's release, the price of CD Projekt's American
Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") fell $6.93, or 25% over three
consecutive trading sessions to close at $20.75 per ADR on December
14, 2020, thereby damaging investors. Over the same period, the
price of the Company's common shares fell $21.65, or 20.1%, to
close at $86.00 on December 14, 2020, thereby damaging investors.
On December 18, 2020, Sony and Microsoft issued statements offering
refunds for those who had purchased Cyberpunk 2077, citing "a wave
of complaints about the long-awaited title."
On this news, the price of the Company's ADRs fell $3.44, or 15.8%,
to close at $18.50 per ADR on December 18, 2020. The price of the
Company's common share price fell $9.20, or 10.45%, to close at
$78.80 on December 18, 2020, thereby damaging investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually unplayable on the
current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems due to an enormous
number of bugs; (2) as a result, Sony would remove Cyberpunk 2077
from the Playstation store, and Sony, Microsoft and CD Projekt
would be forced to offer full refunds for the game; (3)
consequently, CD Projekt would suffer reputational and pecuniary
harm; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased CD Projekt securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
CD PROJEKT: Loses 79% of Player Base Amid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Puah Ziwei, writing for NME, reports that CD Projekt RED's
embattled RPG Cyberpunk 2077 has lost 79 per cent of its player
base since it launched just a month ago.
This is according to a new analysis from video game statistics
website GitHyp, which shows that the game's player base declined to
225k players a day on Steam from its peak of over 1million
concurrent players. In comparison, CD Projekt RED's last release,
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, retained over half its player base a
month after it launched in May 2015.
However, the report also said that the 79 per cent drop is typical
of most single-player games, which usually lose the same percentage
or more of its player base, while noting that open-world games are
usually an exception. GitHyp also pointed out that CDPR has a
"proven track record of fixing their games on PC post-launch",
saying that it's one of the reasons the game still "maintains a
positive average score on Steam".
Despite the controversies over Cyberpunk 2077 and the loss of its
player base, the game has continued to sell well on Steam.
According to PCGamesN, the game has remained the top-selling game
on Steam since the week ending November 22.
CDPR had previously claimed that it sold more than 13million copies
of Cyberpunk 2077, even with refund requests across all platforms
factored in. Roughly 8million of the copies are said to be from
pre-orders alone, according to a prior report.
CDPR is currently facing a class action lawsuit over Cyberpunk
2077's buggy launch. On December 24. the Manhattan-based Rosen Law
Firm filed the suit against the developer "on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded CD
Projekt Red securities". [GN]
CJ RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arriaga Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID JONATAN ARRIAGA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CJ RESTAURANT COMPANY INC. (d/b/a
DELICACY); EUN KYUNG KIM; and CHEON KOO CHO, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00159 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2021) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Arriaga was employed by the Defendants as a beverage
stocker and delivery worker.
CJ RESTAURANT COMPANY INC. owns and operates a deli/restaurant
located New York, New York, under the name “Delicacy.” [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, New York 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
COLONIAL PARKING: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Abraha Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENYAM ABRAHA, et al., v.
COLONIAL PARKING, INC., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00680-CKK
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly entered an order:
1. finding that the Settlement Class meets all requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) for certification of
the class claims alleged in the Amended Complaint,
including (a) numerosity; (b) commonality; (c) typicality;
and (d) adequacy of the Class Representatives and Class
Counsel;
-- On July 31, 2020, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(e), the Court
conditionally certified the following Settlement Class:
"Individuals who participated in the Forge Company
Health and Welfare plan who also received a DUB Benefit
distribution between October 1, 2006 and December 31,
2015;"
2. appointing the Plaintiffs Benyam Abraha, Samuel
Habtewoled, Gedlu Melke, and Esayas Akalu as Class
Representatives;
3. appointing Eascolaw, PLLC and Susan Baron, Esq., as Class
Counsel to represent the members of the Settlement Class;
4. awarding Class Counsel $69,800.32 as reimbursement of
Class Counsel's reasonable expenses incurred in
prosecuting the Action;
-- The Settlement Administrator shall pay this
reimbursement from the Settlement Fund;
5. granting Class Counsel motion for $15,000 Incentive Awards
for each of the Plaintiffs Benyam Abraha, Samuel
Habtewoled, Gedlu Melke, and Esayas Akalu;
-- The Settlement Administrator shall pay such amount to
Named Plaintiffs from the Settlement Fund; and
6. dismissing with prejudice the Action, Amended Complaint
and all Released Claims identified in the Settlement
Agreement against each and all Released Parties and
without costs within the meaning of Rule 54 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure to any of the Parties as against
the others.
This litigation involves claims for alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Colonial provides parking services. The Company offers temporary
parking usually on an hourly, daily, and monthly contract or fee
basis in garages. Colonial Parking provides services in the areas
of buildings, retail malls, sporting events, hospitals, and
government.
A copy of the Court's final order and judgment dated Jan. 11, 2020
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2KbiLBE at no
extra charge.[CC]
COLT RESOURCES: March 8 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Morganti & Co., P.C., on Jan. 7 disclosed that a settlement has
been reached in the class action against Colt Resources Inc.
("Colt"), Nikolas Perrault, Shahab Jaffrey, Joe Kin Foon Tai, and
Paul Yeou, alleging misrepresentations in connection with Colt's
investment in a Turkish company in July of 2016.
The settlement provides for the payment by the Defendants of the
total amount of CDN $950,000, to resolve those claims (the
"Settlement"). The Settlement is a compromise of disputed claims
and is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing by any of the
Defendants.
The Settlement must be approved by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice. A Settlement approval hearing has been set for March 8,
2021 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. At or immediately after the
hearing, the Court will also address a motion to approve Class
Counsel's fees, which will not exceed 28% of the recovery plus
reimbursement for expenses incurred in the litigation.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Colt's shares or units on
any stock exchange, over-the-counter, or directly from Colt, on or
after March 15, 2015, and held them until the close of trading on
July 13, 2016, November 29, 2016, December 20, 2016, or January 30,
2017, you may be a Class Member.
Class Members do not have to do anything at this time to stay in
the class action. If the Court approves the Settlement Agreement,
the Settlement Amount will become available for distribution to the
Class, you will be notified about how to request a portion of the
Settlement Amount. If you stay in the class action you will be
legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court and will not
be able to advance a claim against the Defendants regarding the
legal claims made in this class action.
If you want to opt-out of the class action and not participate in
the Settlement, you must complete the online Opt-Out Form and
provide copies of the documents identified therein to Morganti &
Co., P.C. by no later than March 7, 2020 (the "Opt-Out Deadline").
A copy of the long-form notice providing greater detail about the
Settlement, the Opt-Out Form, your right to oppose the Settlement,
and the hearing date to approve the Settlement is available at
https://morgantico.com/colt-resources-inc/
Class Members may express their views about the Settlement to the
Court. If you wish to do so, you must act by March 8, 2021. For
more information you may send an email to Ian Literovich at
iliterovich@morgantico.com or call him at 647-344-1900.
Contacts:
Ian Literovich
Morganti & Co., P.C.
21 St. Clair Ave. East, Suite 1102
Toronto, ON M4T 1L9
Tel: (647) 344-1900 x9
Email: iliterovich@morgantico.com [GN]
COMPASS GROUP: Chavez Sues Over Hospitality Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY CHAVEZ, an individual v. COMPASS GROUP OF NORTH AMERICA DBA
LEVY RESTAURANTS, SPECTRA FOOD SERVICES AND HOSPITALITY, OVATIONS
FOOD SERVICE, and DOES ONE through FIFTY, inclusive, Case No.
RG20084250 (Cal., Super., Alameda Cty., December 30, 2020) is
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of all persons similarly
situated for the Defendants' failure to pay wages owed under
Oakland's Minimum Wage Law, failure to timely pay owed at
termination, and for violation of the California Unfair Competition
Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by or worked for one or more of the
Defendants as an employee in the City of Oakland, Alameda County,
California. According to itemized wage statements Plaintiff
received, she has been employed as a hospitality worker performing
services at the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum for Defendants from
March 2015 to the present.
The Defendants are restaurant and hospitality companies in the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen F. Henry, Esq.
Mary Kay Lacey, Esq.
Henry Lacey
2625 Alcatraz Avenue, #615
Berkeley, CA 94705
Telephone: (510) 898-1883
Facsimile: (510) 295-2516
CONAGRA BRANDS: Appeal in Briseno Settlement Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that the class member's
appeal in approving the class settlement in Briseno v. ConAgra
Foods, Inc., is still pending.
The company is a party to a number of putative class action
lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the Company's
product labeling.
These matters include Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. in which it is
alleged that the labeling for Wesson(R) oils as 100% natural is
false and misleading because the oils contain genetically modified
plants and organisms. In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California granted class certification to
permit plaintiffs to pursue state law claims.
The Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class certification in January 2017.
The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the
decision and the case was remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.
On April 4, 2019, the trial court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement in this matter.
In the second quarter of fiscal 2020, a single objecting class
member appealed the court's decision approving the settlement to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The settlement will not be final until the appeal has been
resolved.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
CONAGRA BRANDS: Settlement Reached in Negrete Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that Company has notified
the Court that it has reached a settlement in principle with the
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action suit entitled, Negrete
v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al.
The company is a party to matters challenging the Company's wage
and hour practices.
These matters include a number of class actions consolidated under
the caption Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al., pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in
which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California
and/or federal law at several current and former Company
manufacturing facilities across the State of California.
The Company has notified the Court that it has reached a settlement
in principle with the plaintiffs, which requires preliminary and
final approval of the Court.
Conagra said, "While we cannot predict with certainty the results
of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter
to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operations, or business."
Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
CONAGRA BRANDS: West Palm Beach Firefighters' Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, West Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al.
The Company, its directors, and several of its executive officers
are defendants in several class actions alleging violations of
federal securities laws.
The lawsuits assert that the Company's officers made material
misstatements and omissions that caused the market to have an
unrealistically positive assessment of the Company's financial
prospects in light of the acquisition of Pinnacle, thus causing the
Company's securities to be overvalued prior to the release of the
Company's consolidated financial results on December 20, 2018 for
the second quarter of fiscal year 2019.
The first of these lawsuits, captioned West Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al., with
which subsequent lawsuits alleging similar facts have been
consolidated, was filed on February 22, 2019 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
That consolidated lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on December
23, 2020 for failure to state a claim. In addition, on May 9, 2019,
a shareholder filed a derivative action on behalf of the Company
against the Company's directors captioned Klein v. Arora, et al. in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
asserting harm to the Company due to alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty and mismanagement in connection with the Pinnacle acquisition.
On July 9, 2019, September 20, 2019, and March 10, 2020, the
Company received three separate demands from stockholders under
Delaware law to inspect the Company's books and records related to
the Board of Directors' review of the Pinnacle business,
acquisition, and the Company's public statements related to them.
On July 22, 2019 and August 6, 2019, respectively, two additional
shareholder derivative lawsuits captioned Opperman v. Connolly, et
al. and Dahl v. Connolly, et al. were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting similar facts
and claims as the Klein v. Arora, et al. matter. On October 21,
2019, the Company received an additional demand from a stockholder
under Delaware law to appoint a special committee to investigate
the conduct of certain officers and directors in connection with
the Pinnacle acquisition and the Company's public statements.
All remaining shareholder lawsuits and demands are currently stayed
by agreement pending the final outcome of the West Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund matter.
Conagra said, "We have put the Company's insurance carriers on
notice of each of these securities and shareholder matters. While
we cannot predict with certainty the results of these or any other
legal proceedings, we do not expect these matters to have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations, or business."
Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
COVIA HOLDINGS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of February 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Jan. 6 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Covia Holdings Corporation ("Covia" or "the Company") (OTC: CVIAQ)
for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 15,
2016 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 8, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Covia touted its "value-added"
proprietary proppants that failed to be any more effective than
ordinary sand. The Company's revenues were dependent on its
proprietary proppant, which it misrepresented to the market. When
Company insiders raised issues with the proppants, it did not take
action to rectify the situation. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Covia, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
ELDORA BOYS: Iowa Ordered to Pay Class Suit $4.9MM in Attorney Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
desmoinesregister.com reports that a federal judge who ruled last
year that state employees inflicted "torture" on teens at Iowa's
training school for delinquent boys now says the state must pay the
former students' attorneys more than $4.9 million.
Judge Stephanie Rose ruled that the state must pay the plaintiffs'
attorneys almost the entire amount they requested in the
class-action lawsuit. Plaintiffs filed the suit in 2017 on behalf
of former residents of the Eldora Boys State Training School.
The school, run by the Iowa Department of Human Services, houses
boys who have been found to be delinquent for committing crimes.
The lawsuit contended the facility used inhumane methods to control
the boys, including extensive use of isolation rooms and a canvas
restraint device called "the wrap."
State lawyers had asked the judge to reduce the requested fees by
almost $4 million. They contended the plaintiffs used excessive
numbers of lawyers in pressing the case.
Rose wrote that she wasn't obligated to consider exactly how many
attorneys were present for each hearing or meeting.
"The proper question is whether the requested award for expenses is
reasonable," the judge wrote. She wound up reducing the requested
award by just $10,000 in fees for clerical services.
The 2019 trial in U.S. District Court in Des Moines included
descriptions of boys screaming while they were pinned to a bed in
"the wrap." Witnesses said boys -- some suicidal and as young as 14
-- were routinely forced into isolation for weeks at a time in
filthy cells that smelled like urine and had nothing but a sink,
toilet and a raised concrete platform to sleep.
Rose ruled in 2020 that the facility must change its
"unconscionable and deeply concerning" practices. She found that
the school's leaders showed "deliberate indifference" to the boys'
rights.
More:Judge orders halt to use of restraint device at Iowa detention
facility for boys; calls it 'torture'
The former students did not seek any monetary awards for
themselves. They sought -- and received -- a judge's order that
practices at the school be changed.
The plaintiffs' lawyers included attorneys from Disability Rights
Iowa, a federally sanctioned agency that represents people with
disabilities. The agency declined comment on the judge's ruling on
fees. The plaintiffs' lawyers also included attorneys from the
national group Children's Rights Inc. and from the law firm Ropes &
Gray.
Last year, Rose ordered that a monitor ensure the Department of
Human Services made the required changes, including halting use of
"the wrap."
The school's longtime superintendent, Mark Day, retired in May 2020
after trying in vain to defend the institution's practices in
court. He was replaced in August by Wendy Leiker, who formerly was
a juvenile corrections official in Kansas.
Jerry Foxhoven, who was director of the Department of Human
Services, testified during the 2019 trial that the school used
proper methods as a "placement of last resort." Less than a week
later, Gov. Kim Reynolds forced him to resign.
Although Reynolds said the Eldora situation wasn't the specific
trigger for the ouster, she noted extensive media coverage of
controversies in the department and said, "I believe that we can do
better."
Reynolds chose Kelly Garcia to replace Foxhoven as head of the
department.
Human Services Department spokesman Matt Highland said that the
department and its lawyers were reviewing the new ruling before
deciding whether to appeal the award of attorneys' fees.
"The care and well-being of those we serve is our highest priority.
We look forward to continued improvement of the services we
provide," he wrote in an email to the Des Moines Register. [GN]
EXPRESS FASHION: Chacon Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE CHACON, as an
individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. EXPRESS
FASHION OPERATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 8:19-cv-00564-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff will move the Court on June 4, 2021 to enter an
order:
1. certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), on behalf of:
"all individuals employed by Defendant in California as
non-exempt, hourly paid employees who worked at any time
from January 29, 2015 through the date of class
certification", and the following subclasses:
-- On Duty Meal Break Subclass:
"all Class Members who worked as a store manager, co-
manager, full-time sales leader, part time sales
leader, key holder, associate manager, and assistant
manager and worked at least one on-duty meal period";
-- Meal Break Waiver Subclass:
"all Class Members worked at least one shift of five to
six hours";
-- Meal Break Premium Subclass:
"all Class Members worked at least one shift of more
than six hours";
-- Rest Break Premium Subclass:
"all Class Members who worked at least one shift of
more than 3.5 hours during the Class Period (excluding
the time between April 30, 2016 through January 1,
2017)";
-- Regular Rate Subclass:
"all Class Members who earned a non-discretionary bonus
or incentive payment covering the same work period
during which the employee received overtime wages, meal
period premiums, or rest period premiums from January
31, 2015 to December 31, 2018";
-- Waiting Time Subclass:
"all Class Members who worked at least one shift of
more than 3.5 hours from January 31, 2016 to the date
of class certification"; and
-- Derivative Claims Subclass:
"Plaintiff's Complaint also includes claims pursuant to
Labor Code sections 204, 226, 510, 1174(d), 1194, 1197,
1197.1, 1198, and Business & Professions Code section
17200, et seq. These claims are entirely or partially
derivative of the putative class claims at issue in
this Motion and 13 should be certified along with
them;"
2. appointing himself as representative for the proposed
Class; and
3. appointing Capstone Law APC and Jackson Law, APC as Class
Counsel for the proposed Class and Subclasses.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 11,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oJlr8N
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Grant, Esq.
Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
Orlando Villalba, Esq.
Daniel S. Jonathan, Esq.
Capstone Law APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com
Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com
Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com
FERROVIAL SERVICES: Wu Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Shu Wu, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. Ferrovial
Services Infrastructure Inc., formerly known as: Broadspectrum
Infrastructure Inc., formerly known as: Transield Servicers
Infrastructure Inc., a Virginia corporation; Broadspectrum
Americas, Inc., formerly known as: Transfield Services Americas,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; Timec Specialty Services, Inc.,
formerly known as: Broadspectrum Specialty Services, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; and Broadspectrum Downstream Services, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, Case No. CGC-18-567744, was removed from
the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
Dec. 30, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-09447-DMR to the proceeding.
The case is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and is assigned to Judge Donna M. Ryu.
The Defendants are providers of infrastructure maintenance
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Yale Basser, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 432-8492
E-mail: abasser@pomlaw.com
- and -
Bevin Elaine Allen Pike, Esq.
Jennifer Renee Bagosy, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: bevin.pike@capstonelawyers.com
jennifer.bagosy@capstonelawyers.com
- and -
Suzy E. Lee, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
444 S. Flower Street, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 330-4500
Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
E-mail: slee@fisherphillips.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ronald K. Alberts, Esq.
GORDON & REES LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 576-5000
Facsimile: (213) 680-4470
E-mail: ralberts@grsm.com
FLAT RATE: Djurdjevich Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Mirko Djurdjevich filed an appeal from court rulings
entered in the lawsuit entitled MIRKO DJURDJEVICH, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. FLAT RATE MOVERS, LTD.,
SAM GHOLAM, ISRAEL CARMEL and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 17-cv-261 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
claims that Plaintiffs are entitled to (i) compensation for wages
paid at less than the statutory minimum wage, (ii) unpaid wages
from Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive
overtime premium pay as required by law, and (iii) liquidated
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, because
Defendants' violations lacked a good faith basis.
Mr. Djurdjevich is seeking an appeal to review the Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 30, 2020 and Judgment
dated November 30, 2020, granting Defendants' motion for summary
judgment and dismissing without prejudice his claims.
The appellate case is captioned as Djurdjevich v. Flat Rate Movers,
Ltd., Case No. 20-4281, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed Dec. 30, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Mirko Djurdjevich, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, of 2027 East 23rd Street Brooklyn, NY
11229, appears pro se.
Defendants-Appellees Flat Rate Movers, Ltd., Sam Gholam, Israel
Carmel, and John Does 1-10 are represented by:
Christopher Robert Travis, Esq.
TRAVIS LAW PLLC
80 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 248-2120
FLORIDA REGIONAL: Peng Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TING PENG and LIN FU, on
behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly
situated, and derivatively on behalf of HARBOURSIDE FUNDING, LP, a
Florida limited partnership, v. NICHOLAS A. MASTROIANNI II; FLORIDA
REGIONAL CENTER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
HARBOURSIDE FUNDING GP, LLC, a Florida limited liability company;
and HARBOURSIDE PLACE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants, and HARBOURSIDE FUNDING, LP, a Florida limited
partnership, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 9:20-cv-80102-AHS (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying this action as a class action under Fed. R.
Civ. P. (Rule) 23(a) and 23(b) and/or Rule 23(c)(4) on
behalf of the proposed Class defined as:
"all persons who invested in the Funding Partnership
(i.e., all persons who purchased at least one unit of
membership in Nominal Defendant Harbourside Funding, LP
(the "Funding Partnership") and thereby became limited
partners of the Funding Partnership;"
Excluded from the proposed Class are the Defendants, their
affiliates, subsidiaries, agents, board members,
directors, officers, and/or employees; the Court and its
staff; and any Limited Partner who has entered into an
enforceable agreement to settle, waive, or otherwise
resolve their claims against the Defendants;
2. appointing themselves as Class Representatives;
3. appointing their counsel as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule
23(g); and
3. directing that reasonable and adequate notice be provided
to Class Members at the Defendants' expense under Rule
23(c).
The Plaintiffs allege that the $500,000 that they and each of the
other 197 immigrant investors paid for a unit of membership in
Nominal Defendant Harbourside Funding, LP was to have been returned
to them no later than November 30, 2017, but that the Defendants
not only failed to repay the $99,500,000 that came due, they
intentionally breached agreements that governed the transaction for
the purpose of enabling them to keep those funds.
The Plaintiffs are two of 199 immigrant investors who applied for
permanent residence in the United States via the U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services' EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program (the
"EB-5 Program"), which required each applicant to invest at least
$500,000 in a U.S. business that would use the funds in a manner
that creates or maintains at least 10 full-time American jobs.
The Florida Regional Center provides worthwhile opportunities for
foreign investors and their families to obtain permanent U.S.
residency through the EB-5 Visa Program. Harbourside Place, LLC was
formed in March 2010. It lies within the proposed Florida Regional
Center District located in Palm Beach County, Florida.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 11,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bDygOb
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew Fornaro, Esq.
MATTHEW FORNARO, P.A.
11555 Heron Bay Boulevard, Suite 200
Coral Springs, FL 33076
Telephone: (954) 324-3651
Facsimile: (954) 248-2099
E-mail: mfornaro@fornarolegal.com
- and -
Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq.
DEHENG LAW OFFICES
Silicon Valley Office
7901 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 208
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Telephone: (925) 399-5856
Facsimile: (925) 397-1976
E-mail: jfazio@dehengsv.com
FORSYTHE FINANCIAL: Trial Unnecessary in McMurray Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD L. McMURRAY, v.
FORSYTHE FINANCIAL, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00008-TS (D. Utah), the
Hon. Judge Ted Stewart entered an order granting the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff argues that the judgments Forsythe
obtained when it was not registered are void and requests a
declaration that those judgments are "void and unenforceable" and
that Forsythe is not "entitled to collect any sums on those
judgments." The Plaintiff also requests that Forsythe be "ordered
to disgorge all sums collected" on these judgments and seeks
"damages consisting of any amount collected by the Defendant."
Granting this relief would nullify the earlier judgment and impair
Forsythe’s rights to the money judgment established in the
collection action. Therefore, Plaintiff is precluded from asserting
this claim here."
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action asserting claims
under the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (UCSPA) and the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) based on the fact that
Forsythe was not registered as a collection agency under Utah law
at the time it engaged in the collection activities. Forsythe now
seeks summary judgment on the Plaintiff's claims.
The Plaintiff financed the purchase of a motor vehicle pursuant to
a retail installment contract and security agreement. That contract
was assigned to CarFinance Capital, LLC and was secured by the
purchased vehicle as collateral. The Plaintiff defaulted, the
vehicle was repossessed and was sold at auction. The proceeds from
the sale were insufficient to pay the full amount due under the
contract, leaving a deficiency balance. CarFinance Capital, LLC
assigned the right to payment of that balance, plus interest, to
Forsythe.
A copy of the Court's memorandum, decision and order dated Jan. 11,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3oJeOTHat
no extra charge.[CC]
FOUNDATION ENERGY: Shortchanges Royalty Payments, Heritage Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heritage Royalty Oil & Gas, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Foundation Energy Management, LLC
(including affiliated predecessors & successors), Defendant(s),
Case No. 20-cv-03753 (D. Colo., December 22, 2020), seeks
compensatory losses and damages allowed by law, including
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and costs and expenses of
litigation and such other further relief resulting from breach of
contract and violations under Oklahoma statutes.
Foundation Energy is alleged of willful underpayment or non-payment
of royalties on oil and gas production through improper accounting
methods, such as not paying royalty on all of the constituents
produced from the gas stream, not calculating royalty on the gross
starting market price at which the gas products were sold and by
deducting or allowing the deduction of certain midstream service
costs, both monetary and in-kind, from royalty when the leases do
not expressly allow such deductions.
Heritage Royalty Oil & Gas, LLC is a Colorado-based company with
royalty interests in wells located in Oklahoma. Foundation Energy
markets the gas produced and pays royalty to Heritage on the gas
produced from wells under vis-a-vis an oil and gas lease. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
5301 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Tel: (913) 901-0505
Fax: (913) 901-0419
Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com
- and -
Barbara C. Frankland, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
11990 Grant Street, Suite 550
Northglenn, CO 80233
Tel: (720) 932-0700
Fax: (720) 932-0700
Email: bfrankland@midwest-law.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Tosses Warranty Claims in Transmission Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam McEachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that a
class-action GM transmission lawsuit has hit a snag after a judge
dismissed certain implied warranty claims made in the filing.
Five separate class-action lawsuits filed against General Motors
over alleged defects with its eight-speed automatic transmission
were consolidated in a Michigan court, according to Car Complaints.
In the process, the judge presiding over the lawsuit, Judge David
M. Lawson, dismissed claims related to implied warranty for all
plaintiffs that fall under the laws of Alabama, Arizona,
Connecticut, Idaho, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Washington
and Wisconsin. Another claim related to class wide monetary damages
for a sole plaintiff under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act was
also dismissed.
Numerous class-action suits have been filed against GM over its
8L45E and 8L90 eight-speed automatic transmission. Plaintiffs claim
the eight-speed automatic transmission will slip gears, shift into
gear aggressively and also cause the vehicle to shudder or jerk.
Plaintiffs have also reported the transmission will lead to delayed
acceleration and make it more difficult for the vehicle to slow
down.
GM has argued that these claims should be thrown out, as its
express warranty only covers defects that relate to materials and
workmanship, and not design defects. The suits claim that all 8L45E
and 8L90E transmissions experience these problems, which implies
the problems are related to a design defect instead, the automaker
said.
Judge Lawson will allow other allegations in the suit to proceed,
including certain other claims related to implied warranty. The
judge also acknowledged that the complaints put forth by plaintiffs
could be consistent with either materials/workmanship defects or a
design defect. He also did not dismiss claims that GM knew there
were issues with the eight-speed transmission before it put
affected vehicles on sale, saying "plausible inferences may be
drawn that GM had substantial knowledge about the looming problems
with its new transmissions before any of the plaintiffs' purchases
were made."
The full list of affected vehicles in this newly consolidated
transmission lawsuit includes:
2015-2017 Cadillac Escalade
2015-2017 Cadillac Escalade ESV
2016-2019 Cadillac ATS
2016-2019 Cadillac ATS-V
2016-2019 Cadillac CTS
2016-2019 Cadillac CTS-V
2016-2019 Cadillac CT6
2015-2019 Chevrolet Silverado
2017-2019 Chevrolet Colorado
2015-2019 Chevrolet Corvette
2016-2019 Chevrolet Camaro
2017-2019 GMC Canyon
2015-2019 GMC Sierra
2015-2019 GMC Yukon
2015-2019 GMC Yukon XL
2015-2017 GMC Yukon Denali
2015-2017 GMC Yukon Denali XL
We'll continue to provide updates on this consolidated class-action
eight-speed transmission lawsuit as it proceeds through the courts.
[GN]
GENERALI US: Schrader Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gary Schrader, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Generali U.S. Branch, Generali Global
Assistance, Inc. agent of CSA Travel Protection, Generali Global
Assistance, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-04548, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
Jan. 11, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00205-JGK to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Other Contract.
Generali US Branch is licensed as a domestic insurance/reinsurance
company in all 50 states and territories for all major business
lines.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Fl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
glynch@carlsonlynch.com
GOL LINHAS: Judge Appoints Pomerantz LLP to Lead Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a New York federal magistrate judge on Jan. 6
appointed Pomerantz LLP to lead a consolidated putative securities
class action accusing the Brazilian airline Gol Linhas Aereas SA of
misleading investors. [GN]
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Zhang Investor Reminds of February 16 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of GoodRx Holdings, Inc. ( GDRX)
between September 23, 2020 and November 16, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=goodrx-holdings-inc&id=2531
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=goodrx-holdings-inc&id=2531
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the February 16, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that- Amazon.com, Inc. was developing and would soon introduce its
own online and mobile prescription medication ordering and
fulfillment service that would directly compete with GoodRx.
Defendants timed the IPO so that it was priced before Amazon
announced its online pharmaceutical business to facilitate the IPO
and create artificial demand for the common shares sold therein, as
well to maximize the amount of money the Company and the selling
stockholders could raise in the IPO. According to the GoodRx class
action lawsuit, given defendants' knowledge of Amazon's intention
to enter the online pharmaceutical business, their statements in
the Registration Statement and during the Class Period about
GoodRx's competitive position were materially false and/or
misleading when made and caused GoodRx Class A common stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices of more than $64 per share
during the Class Period.
Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may
retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.
Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Alexander Alleges Android Mobile App Market Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC; and ALPHABET INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00018-RCY-LRL (E.D. Va., Jan. 8, 2021) alleges
that the Defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct in violation
of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, the Google Play Store was created by
Google for the distribution and sale of mobile applications and
in-app purchases for us on Android smartphones and other mobile
devices utilizing the Android operating system. Google Play Store
is available to mobile device users running Google's Android
operating system.
While Google claims that the Android OS is maintained as "open"
source software, Google has allegedly engaged in a course of
conduct designed to deter competition in the market for Android
apps and products sold with such apps ("Android App Market").
Google has engaged in anticompetitive conduct through its
distribution and pre-installation agreements with Android phone
manufacturers, to monopolize the market for apps and in-app
purchases, the suit says.
Google LLC is a global technology company specializes in
Internet-related services and products. The Company is primarily
focused on web-based search and display advertising tools, search
engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves
customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony M. Carter, Esq.
Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 278-2600
Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
E-mail: acarter@tostrudlaw.com
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com
GRIFFIN HOSPITAL: Judge Allows Insulin Pens Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Driscoll, writing for Valley Independent Sentinel, reports
that a judge has certified a class action lawsuit filed against
Griffin Hospital, according to a press release sent on Jan. 6 by
the law firm representing the plaintiffs.
The lawsuit alleges Griffin Hospital improperly used multi-dose
insulin delivery pens by using the same devices on multiple
patients. The disposable needles inside the pens were not reused.
"Multi-dose insulin pens are intended for single-patient use only
and are not intended to be used on multiple patients," according to
a statement from Silver Golub and Teitell LLP. "Although multi-dose
insulin pens utilize single use needles, the cartridge of insulin
itself can be contaminated through the backflow of blood or skin
cells from a patient, and thus could potentially transmit an
infection if used on another patient."
The improper use of the device allegedly happened between September
2008 and May 7, 2014.
The certification from a judge in Superior court in Waterbury
allows the lawsuit to proceed as a class-action lawsuit. The
certification happened Nov. 23. Griffin sought permission to
immediately appeal to the state's Supreme Court, but was denied
Dec. 14.
The Valley Indy reached out to Griffin Hospital on Jan. 6 for
comment. The organization responded on Jan. 6 in a prepared
statement attributed to Todd J. Liu, vice president, accountable
care and general counsel.
"Griffin has been open and transparent about the events relating to
the prior use of insulin pens from the time the hospital
voluntarily came forward in 2014. Griffin's first priority was
ensuring that people potentially exposed were notified, safe, and
given the opportunity to be tested, which Griffin initiated and did
at its expense. Griffin voluntarily disclosed what occurred in its
letter to individuals potentially affected. Beyond the information
that the hospital has already publicly released in 2014 to its
patients and the community about these events, Griffin respectfully
declines to comment further about any ongoing matter in litigation
and we will continue to vigorously defend against the claims being
made."
Background
In 2014, hospital officials held a press conference and set up a
website saying that about 3,100 patients had insulin pens ordered
for them while in the hospital between 2008 and 2014.
Hospital officials pointed out the disposable needles inside the
pens were not re-used, but the pens themselves were reused.
Thousands of patients were notified, and the hospital offered to
test them for hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
At the time, hospital officials said the "risk of disease
transmission is considered extremely small."
"At this time there is no evidence that disease transmission has
occurred to any patient at Griffin Hospital resulting from improper
use of insulin pens, and the hospital has not identified any
patients that in fact received an insulin injection from an insulin
pen used on another patient," the hospital said in a 2014 statement
posted on its website.
Hearst CT published an article in 2014 in which an Ansonia man
blamed the hospital after he was diagnosed with hepatitis C, to
which the hospital issued a statement in response.
Next Steps
The first plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit, which commenced in 2016,
are Anthony Diaz, Bruce Sypniewski and Daisy Gmitter, but the
class-action nature of the lawsuit opens it up to at least 3,000
people.
The press release from the plaintiff's law firm also alleges
Griffin Hospital staff improperly removed patient identification
labels affixed to a multi-dose pen prescribed to a patient, and
then used that device on other patients.
The plaintiffs allege that the improper use of the insulin pens
happened due to "several institutional failures" by the hospital
(and Griffin Health), including the failure to have policies in
place regarding the use of the devices and a lack of education and
training for the staffers using the devices.
The lawsuit is now pending in Superior Court in Waterbury.
Now that the court action has been allowed to proceed as a class
action lawsuit, and the "class" itself has been defined, the next
step is for the court to establish how to formally notify the
people in the plaintiff pool. That could happen in the spring or
summer of this year, according to the press release. [GN]
HANNA ANDERSSON: Bradley Arant Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel LaBruyere, Esq. -- rlabruyere@bradley.com -- and Lissette
Payne, Esq. -- lpayne@bradley.com -- of Bradley Arant Boult
Cummings LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that in 2019, Hanna
Andersson, a children's apparel store, suffered a data breach while
using a Salesforce e-commerce platform. As a result of the breach,
customers filed a class action lawsuit, alleging customer data was
stolen and asking that both Hanna Andersson and Salesforce be held
liable under the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA).
Background
Barnes v. Hanna Andersson and Salesforce (4:20-cv-00812-DMR) was
one of the first cases filed under the newly effective CCPA, and it
has garnered much attention from privacy experts and attorneys
alike. According to the complaint, the data breach allegedly
occurred from September 16, 2019, to November 11, 2019, during
which time hackers collected sensitive consumer information, such
as customer names, billing and shipping addresses, payment card
numbers, CVV codes, and credit card expiration dates. On December
5, 2019, law enforcement found this information on the dark web and
alerted Hanna Andersson, which then investigated the incident and
confirmed that Salesforce's platform was "infected with malware."
Hanna Andersson reported this breach to customers and the
California attorney general on January 15, 2020.
Plaintiffs allege that the breach was caused by Hanna Andersson's
and Salesforce's "negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and
failure to protect customer's data . . . [and failure] to detect
the breach." Plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of the
breach, Hanna Andersson's customers "face a lifetime risk of
identity theft."
Moreover, Bernadette Barnes, the named plaintiff in the case,
alleges that she now experiences anxiety as a result of time spent
reviewing the "account compromised by the breach, contacting her
credit card company, exploring credit monitoring options, and
self-monitoring her accounts." Barnes also claims to now feel
hesitation about shopping on other online websites.
Settlement
In December 2020, the court preliminarily approved the class action
settlement filed by the plaintiffs. This settlement included both
monetary and non-monetary requirements. First, a $400,000
settlement fund that will provide cash payments of up to $500 per
class member, with expense awards of up to $5,000 available to
class members with extraordinary circumstances, such as rampant
identity theft. The actual payment to the average class member is
not ascertainable now since it will vary depending on the ultimate
size of the class, however it is expected to be approximately $38
per class member. Second, the settlement requires Hanna Andersson
to improve its cybersecurity through, but not limited to, the
following measures: hiring a director of cybersecurity,
implementing multi-factor authentication for cloud services
accounts, and conducting a risk assessment consistent with the NIST
Risk Management Framework.
Takeaway
At this point, it's unclear whether these requirements should be
viewed as setting an industry standard for compliance or for
setting minimum practices. For example, multi-factor authentication
has long been considered an industry standard and an order for its
implementation seems more like an indictment of Hanna Andersson's
practices than the creation of a new and more robust standard.
Additionally, it is noteworthy that the court ordered Hanna
Andersson to hire a director of cybersecurity and not a chief
information security officer (CISO). While at first glance these
seem like simple differences in title, a CISO is an executive-level
position that typically plays an enterprise-wide role in developing
and implementing privacy and cybersecurity policies, while also
responding to any incidents that may occur. Many consider a CISO
role that reports directly to the CEO to be an industry
best-practice. In comparison, a director of cybersecurity is not an
executive-level position, rather it is a role that may often report
to a CISO or be siloed within an Information Technology department.
Typically, the director of cybersecurity has less authority and
power to shape policies enterprise-wide.
Regardless, this settlement will set the stage for any upcoming
CCPA-related privacy and cybersecurity disputes. Furthermore, this
settlement will provide insight into who may be sued under CCPA,
specifically whether third-party processors may be brought into
litigation going forward. In light of this decision, businesses
should compare their privacy and cybersecurity practices to the
settlement requirements, while bearing in mind that these represent
the minimum for compliance, not necessarily the industry standard.
Continue to look for further updates and alerts from Bradley on
state privacy rights and obligations. [GN]
HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE: Denial of Arbitration in Garcia Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, affirms the
denial of the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the
lawsuit entitled PAUL GARCIA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v.
HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE CO., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. B296923
(Cal. App.).
The Defendant appeals from an order denying its motion to compel
arbitration, contending that there was insufficient evidence to
support the trial court's finding that it had waived its right to
arbitrate. The Appellate Court affirms.
The Defendant is a beverage distributor, and employed Plaintiffs
Garcia and Pierre Atme as truck drivers. Since 2003, the
Defendant's employee handbooks recited a policy that any and all
claims, disputes or controversies between employees and the
Defendant will be resolved by binding arbitration.
On March 20, 2009, Atme executed an Employee Handbook
Acknowledgement, Receipt, and Consent form. On April 2, 2009,
Garcia executed an identical arbitration agreement.
On Nov. 11, 2016, Garcia served his original complaint on the
Defendant. On Jan. 31, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the operative
amended putative class action complaint in Kern County Superior
Court, alleging various violations of wage and hour laws. On March
7, 2017, the parties stipulated to transfer venue to the Los
Angeles County Superior Court. On March 15, 2017, the Defendant
filed its answer, asserting, among other defenses, that the
Plaintiffs' claims were subject to an executed arbitration
agreement.
On Nov. 20, 2018, the Defendant filed its notice of motion to
compel arbitration and request for a stay. On Nov. 27, 2018, the
Plaintiffs filed their preliminary opposition, asserting, among
other things, that the Defendant had waived its right to arbitrate
by its unreasonable delay and conduct inconsistent with the right
to arbitrate, which misled and prejudiced them.
The trial court held a hearing on the Defendant's motion on March
6, 2019, during which it asserted that it had not located copies of
the Plaintiffs' signed arbitration agreements until June 2018. The
Defendant conceded, however, that at the time the lawsuit was
filed, it had located documents confirming its policy of requiring
employees to sign arbitration agreements and the checklists that
showed what each employee had received, including the arbitration
agreement.
On March 18, 2019, the trial court denied the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration. It found that the Defendant knew, from the time
it filed its answer, that it had an arbitration policy and failed
to demonstrate that it conducted a diligent search for the signed
arbitration agreements. The court also found that, even after
locating the signed arbitration agreements, the Defendant continued
to act in a manner that was inconsistent with the right to
arbitrate. Finally, it found that the Plaintiffs had been
prejudiced by the delay by expending time and money engaging in
classwide discovery and related disputes; preparing and serving the
notices pursuant to Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court
(2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554 (Belaire-West) to putative class
members; and filing a discovery motion.
The Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. It contends that
insufficient evidence supported the trial court's finding that it
waived its right to arbitrate. The Appellate Court disagrees.
According to the Defendant, it acted reasonably in waiting to file
the motion to compel until after it located the signed arbitration
agreements in June 2018.
Judge Dorothy Kim, writing for the Panel, notes that there is no
dispute that the Defendant was aware of its right to arbitrate at
the outset of litigation. Indeed, the Defendant asserted its right
to arbitrate as an affirmative defense in its answer and further
"reserved" its right to arbitrate in the joint status conference
statements. The Defendant also concedes in its opening brief that
it was aware that its employee handbook required its employees to
arbitrate all employment disputes with the Defendant, and that it
was customary for its employees to execute arbitration agreements.
Under the California Rules of Court, rule 3.1330, a party
petitioning to compel arbitration must state the provisions of the
written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration.
Thus, under the rule, unless there is a dispute over authenticity,
it is sufficient for a party moving to compel arbitration to recite
the terms of the governing provision.
The Appellate Court, therefore, rejects the Defendant's contention
that it was reasonable to wait until it located the executed
arbitration agreements before filing its motion, particularly in
light of its concession that at the outset of the litigation, it
was not only aware of its policy requiring arbitration, but had
located checklists that demonstrated both the Plaintiffs had
received a copy of the arbitration agreement.
Moreover, Judge Kim finds, substantial evidence supported a finding
that the length of the Defendant's delay prior to filing its motion
to compel arbitration and for a stay was unreasonable. Twenty-four
months elapsed from the time the Defendant was served with Garcia's
original complaint, on Nov. 11, 2016, to when it filed its motion
to compel arbitration, on Nov. 20, 2018. Twenty months elapsed from
the time it asserted arbitration as an affirmative defense in its
answer on March 15, 2017, to when it filed its motion. Even
excluding the nine-month period during which the action was stayed
pending mediation, from June 23, 2017, to March 21, 2018, the delay
was still unreasonably long.
Although the Defendant initially asserted arbitration as an
affirmative defense, it subsequently represented in two status
conference statements that it did not intend to arbitrate. Further,
it argued that classwide arbitration was unavailable under the
arbitration agreements because the Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate
their individual claims against the Defendant. The Defendant's
conduct related to classwide issues was inconsistent with its
claimed right to arbitrate individual claims and strongly supported
the trial court's finding that the Defendant acted in a manner
inconsistent with its right to arbitrate, Judge Kim opines.
The Defendant's citation to Khalatian v. Prime Time Shuttle, Inc.
(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 651 is inapposite, according to the
complaint Appellate Court. The court in Khalatian reversed the
trial court's finding that the defendants had waived their right to
arbitrate by waiting 14 months to file their motion. The court
found no waiver because: no depositions were taken and no discovery
motions were filed; the defendants' demurrer and motion to strike
were taken off calendar, not overruled or denied, and therefore the
motion to compel arbitration was not filed as a last resort; and
the trial was scheduled to commence more than a year later.
By contrast, the Defendant engaged in conduct related to classwide,
rather than individual, issues. Moreover, the Defendant only filed
its motion to compel arbitration after it failed to settle the
classwide case and after it was served with the Plaintiffs' motion
to compel discovery responses and for fees. Such acts support an
inference that, unlike the defendants in Khalatian, the Defendant
here raised arbitration as a belated strategy, if not as a strategy
of last resort, Judge Kim points out.
Judge Kim also opines that substantial evidence supported the trial
court's finding that the Defendant's delay impaired the Plaintiffs'
ability to realize the benefits and efficiencies of arbitration.
The Plaintiffs expended resources in filing a motion to compel
further discovery responses and for attorney fees. On this record,
substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that
the Plaintiffs were prejudiced by the Defendant's unreasonable
delay in seeking arbitration of the Plaintiffs' individual claims.
Therefore, the order denying the motion to compel arbitration is
affirmed. The Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their costs on
appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 4, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyvd63rj from Leagle.com.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, R. Scott Sokol -- ssokol@grsm.com --
Matthew G. Kleiner -- mkleiner@grsm.com -- and Travis Jang-Busby --
tjang-busby@grsm.com -- for Defendant and Appellant.
Mara Law Firm, David Mara -- dmara@maralawfirm.com -- and Matthew
Crawford -- mcrawford@maralawfirm.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer
and Jeff Geraci -- jgeraci@ckslaw.com -- for Plaintiffs and
Respondents.
HEALING TOUCH: Welch FLSA Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE WELCH, for
herself and all others similarly situated, v. HEALING TOUCH HEALTH
SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00894-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Timothy S. Black entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying a class pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 216(b):
"all current and former Direct Support Professionals,
State Tested Nurse Aide's (STNA's), a licensed practical
nurse's (LPN's), registered nurse's (RN's), House
Managers, Private Duty Aides, or other employees
performing health care services for the Defendant since
January 1, 2019 who were paid on an hourly basis and did
not receive overtime payment at a rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in a
workweek in excess of 40;"
2. approving the Plaintiff's Proposed Notice of Collective
Action Lawsuit and Consent to Class;
3. appointing Greg R. Mansell, Carrie J. Dyer, and Rhiannon
M. Herbert of Mansell Law LLC as Class Counsel for the
conditionally certified collective class; and
4. approving the Notice Period, Extended Notice Periods, and
notice procedures as described in the joint stipulation;
and
5. directing the Defendant, within 14 days of this Order, to
identify all Putative Class Members by providing a list of
names, last known addresses, and last known email
addresses.
Healing Touch is a provider of Home Health, Home Care, and
Non-Emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT) services in Fairfield,
Ohio.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35CN5Ni at no extra charge.[CC]
HOME DEPOT: Davey Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Lisa Davey, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Home Depot USA, Inc. a Delaware
Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-07297, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on December 30, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-02541-W-NLS to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that Home Depot failed to provide meal and
rest periods, failed to pay meal and rest break premiums, failed to
provide wages when due, failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and that Home Depot violated California's unfair
competition law. She also seeks penalties for Labor Code violations
under the Private Attorneys General Act.
The case is assigned to Judge Thomas J. Whelan.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. operates home improvement retail stores.
The Company offers building materials, home improvement, lawn,
garden, kitchen, lighting, storage, and flooring design products.
Home Depot U.S.A. serves customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Ross Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
The Defendants are represented by:
Donna Marie Mezias, Esq.
Dorothy Frances Kaslow, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
580 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 765-9500
Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
E-mail: dkaslow@akingump.com
- and -
Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
John David Hayashi, Esq.
Nancy My Ngoc Nguyen, Esq.
Paul Bartholomew Quintans, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS
600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 830-0600
Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
E-mail: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
bart.quintans@morganlewis.com
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Class Action Attorneys Seek $3.7MM Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Tricchinelli, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the
attorneys who negotiated a $10.5 million ERISA settlement on behalf
of participants in Huntington Bancshares Inc.'s 401(k) plan asked
an Ohio federal judge to award them nearly $3.7 million in fees and
expenses.
A fee of one-third the settlement amount is in line with awards in
other Employee Retirement Income Security Act class actions, the
attorneys said in a motion filed on Jan. 5 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
And it's warranted because the settlement gives class members about
30% of the total damages alleged in the case, which "compares
favorably with other class action settlements," the attorneys
said.
The settlement received preliminary approval from Judge Michael H.
Watson after he largely denied Huntington's motion to dismiss in
2019. It is expected to benefit about 39,000 participants in the
company's 401(k) plan.
The deal resolves a lawsuit that sought to hold Huntington liable
under ERISA for allegedly filling its 401(k) plan with
underperforming proprietary mutual funds and paying excessive
administrative fees to a subsidiary.
The case is one of dozens of recent lawsuits challenging financial
companies that include affiliated investment products in their
401(k) plans. Several companies have signed multimillion-dollar
settlements, including Reliance Trust Co. ($39.8 million), McKinsey
& Co. ($39.5 million), SunTrust Banks Inc. ($29 million), Fidelity
Investments ($28.5 million), BB&T Corp. ($24 million), and Deutsche
Bank ($21.9 million).
The Huntington plan participants are represented by Nichols Kaster
PLLP and Barkan, Meizlish, DeRose, Wentz, McInerney, Peifer LLP.
Huntington is represented by Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP and
Sidley Austin LLP.
The case is Karpik v. Huntington Bancshares Inc., S.D. Ohio, No.
2:17-cv-01153, motion for attorneys' fees 1/5/21. [GN]
IDEANOMICS INC: Kessler Topaz Needs to File Amendment Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP ("Kessler
Topaz") announces that the firm has been appointed Lead Counsel in
a securities fraud class action lawsuit pending against Ideanomics,
Inc. ("Ideanomics"). The action, captioned In re Ideanomics, Inc.
Securities Litigation Case No. 1:20-cv-04944-GBD-OTW (the
"Action"), is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and is brought on behalf of
Ideanomics investors who purchased Ideanomics common stock between
March 20, 2020 and June 25, 2020. Pursuant to the Court's
scheduling order, Kessler Topaz is required to file an amended
complaint by February 26, 2021.
Investors who purchased or acquired Ideanomics common stock
(NASDAQ: IDEX) between March 20, 2020 and June 25, 2020 are
encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James
Maro, Esq. (484-270-1413) or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484-270-1435));
toll free at (844) 887-9500; or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. For
additional information about this Action please click:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/ideanomics-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=ideanomics#overview
Ideanomics is a global company focused on facilitating the adoption
of commercial electric vehicles ("EV") and developing next
generation financial services and Fintech products. On March 20,
2020, Ideanomics issued a press release announcing that "the
Qingdao-MEG Sales Center, branded as Mobile Energy Group Center, is
scheduled to start sales operations by May 1."
According to the initial complaint filed in the Action, on June 25,
2020, analyst Hindenburg Research issued a series of tweets in
which it called Ideanomics "an egregious & obvious fraud."
Hindenburg asserted that it found evidence that Ideanomics had
doctored photos for use in its press releases to suggest that it
owns or operates a vehicle sales center in Qingdao, China, when it
in fact does not. Also, on June 25, 2020, analyst J Capital
Research issued a report on Ideanomics entitled "Champion of
Promotes." J Capital Research wrote, in part, that "Ideanomics . .
. is a zero. The company changes its name and promotional story so
frequently that it's hard to keep up. One thing remains a constant,
despite all the press releases, buzzwords and hype: shareholders
get wiped out."
On June 26, 2020, Ideanomics issued a press release in which it
sought to "clarify the status" of its purported EV hub in Qingdao,
China. In its release, Ideanomics walked back certain of its prior
statements regarding the MEG Center in Qingdao, stating that it was
launching three phases of its MEG Center that will eventually total
one million square feet. Following this news, the price of
Ideanomics common stock fell from its June 24, 2020 close of $3.09
per share to a close of $1.46 per share on June 26, 2020, a two-day
drop of approximately 53%.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please visit
www.ktmc.com. [GN]
IRONMAN GROUP: Judge Rules in its Favor in Lawsuit Over Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Tom Barber granted Ironman's request for a
summary judgement in a proposed class action lawsuit over the lack
of refunds for races canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
Florida judge ruled that the "no refund" clause athletes agree to
when registering for a race was clear and fair.
The suit was filed against Ironman and the World Triathlon
Corporation in May, alleging the company and its subsidiary,
Competitor Group, owe athletes refunds for events canceled or
postponed due to COVID-19. It was originally filed on behalf of one
athlete, Mikaela Ellenwood, a Colorado resident who had registered
for the Rock n' Roll San Francisco half-marathon, which was
scheduled for April 5. She had also purchased flights and
accommodations for the event, according to the complaint. When that
race was canceled on March 14, registrants had their entries
deferred to the next year and were not given the option of a
refund. Jorge Casanova, of Vallejo, California, was also added as a
primary plaintiff to the suit. He registered for Santa Rosa 70.3,
which was also canceled.
RELATED: Class-Action Lawsuit Filed Against Ironman Over Lack Of
Refunds
"Defendants should not be permitted to force Plaintiff and members
of the class to bear the financial burden of the events canceled as
a result of COVID-19," read the complaint, which was filed in the
Middle District of Florida, where Ironman is headquartered.
The suit argued that Ironman Group, which operates hundreds of
races around the globe, including the Rock n' Roll running races,
was "neither flexible nor understanding of participants'
concerns."
Ironman's lawyers argued that the case should be dismissed because
the athletes signed a contract acknowledging no refunds would be
given. Judge Barber agreed.
In his decision, the judge wrote: "This is a very simple case. No
refunds means exactly what it says -- no refunds."
He also said that a no-refund clause is "fair and consistent with
common sense," given the type of events being debated. If race
organizers were required to give refunds when events were canceled
for issues beyond their control, he said, most race companies
wouldn't be able to sustain a business.
When an athlete registers for an event, there are a number of
waivers and terms and conditions they accept and agree to. For
instance, it's fairly common to acknowledge that you will not be
refunded in the event of a cancellation due to weather or due to an
act of God -- commonly referred to as a "force majeure" clause.
The issue was really more about athletes' feelings of frustration
over a perceived lack of information and customer service around
their scheduled events. Many athletes complained that they had a
hard time getting responses from Ironman or finding information
about their rescheduled or postponed events.
In the last year, hundreds of races have been canceled due to
COVID-related concerns. However, until an event is officially
canceled or postponed, Ironman confirmed the standard non-COVID
cancellation policy would still be in place. Those specific
policies vary from race to race, but typically mean an athlete can
not transfer or defer without paying a fee or losing a portion of
their entry fee, and an athlete can not get a refund unless they've
purchased registration insurance. That means for athletes waiting
to find out if their race was canceled or postponed, there were
often few options. Once an Ironman race was canceled or postponed
due to COVID, most athletes were offered a deferral to the next
year's race or a transfer to a specific alternative race.
The plaintiff's lawyers did not have any comment at this time. Read
the full judge's decision https://bit.ly/2XCbzBK. [GN]
JA SOLAR: Altimeo, ODS Appeal Ruling in Securities Suit to 2nd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiffs Altimeo Asset Management and ODS Capital LLC filed
an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ODS
CAPITAL LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff vs. JA SOLAR HOLDINGS CO., LTD., BAOFANG JIN,
AND SHAOHUA JIA, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12083-ALC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all former
stockholders and former owners of JA Solar stock and ADS who sold
shares, and were damaged thereby, during the period between
December 11, 2017 and July 16, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
The complaint alleges that JA Solar shareholders were misled into
accepting consideration from the Merger that was well below fair
value for their JA Solar shares. Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose: (1) that the Company's Proxy materials misrepresented
and/or omitted material information that was necessary for Company
shareholders to make an informed decision concerning whether to
vote in favor of the Merger; (2) that contrary to the
representations in the Proxy, the Company already had plans to
relist its shares in China prior to closing the Merger and its
delisting from the NASDAQ; and (3) as a result, the Company's
statements about its business, operations, and prospects lacked a
reasonable basis.
The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated November 30, 2020, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim under both Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Under the order,
Plaintiffs' claims under Sections 20(a) and 20A are dismissed as
well.
The appellate case is captioned as ODS Capital LLC v. JA Solar
Holdings Co. Ltd., Case No. 20-4268, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 30, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ODS Capital LLC, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, and Altimeo Asset Management are
represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Michael Grunfeld, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com
- and -
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
Jake Bissell-Linsk, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com
jbissell-linsk@labaton.com
- and -
Jo Ann Palchak, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JO ANN PALCHAK, P.A.
1725 1/2 7th Ave., Suite 6
Tampa, FL 33605
Telephone: (813) 468-4884
E-mail: jpalchak@palchaklaw.com
Defendants-Appellees JA SOLAR HOLDINGS CO., LTD., BAOFANG JIN, AND
SHAOHUA JIA are represented by:
Scott D. Musoff, Esq.
Michael Charles Griffin, Esq.
Robert Alexander Fumerton, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER
& FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001−8602
Telephone: (212) 735−7852
Facsimile: (917) 777−7852
E-mail: smusoff@skadden.com
michael.griffin@skadden.com
robert.fumerton@skadden.com
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Settlement Reached in Campbell Suit vs Tyco Fire
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 7,
2021, that a settlement has been reached in Joan & Richard Campbell
v. Tyco Fire Products LP and Chemguard Inc., et al.
On January 7, 2021, Tyco Fire Products LP and Chemguard Inc., each
wholly-owned, indirect subsidiaries of Johnson Controls
International plc, agreed to settle the previously disclosed class
action lawsuit filed in 2018 regarding PFAS associated with Tyco's
Fire Technology Center (FTC) property in Marinette, Wisconsin.
The settlement provides that Tyco will pay up to $17.5 million to
compensate Town of Peshtigo residents who live in the area affected
by PFAS from the FTC.
The $17.5 million settlement includes compensation for qualified
property owners for the claimed loss of value to their real
property caused by the presence of PFAS as well as compensation to
individuals for claims related to PFAS exposure or personal injury.
The Company does not expect the settlement to have an impact on its
fiscal year 2021 earnings or cash flows.
The settlement does not affect or change Tyco's ongoing efforts to
remediate PFAS associated with the FTC, including Tyco's commitment
to fund a permanent drinking water solution in the Town of Peshtigo
and to build systems to permanently clean up ground/surface water
and soil.
The settlement of this lawsuit represents resolution of a class
action involving the only location in the country where Tyco and
Chemguard blend and test firefighting foam, in contrast to the
other cases in which Tyco and Chemguard are parties involving the
use of fire-fighting foam products on military bases, airfields,
and other locations where firefighting foam and PFAS-containing
products made by many different manufacturers may have been used.
In the large majority of these other cases, Tyco and Chemguard
believe that they have a government contractor defense available to
them which, if successful, would result in immunity from the claims
related to such sites.
The settlement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by
Tyco or Chemguard, and Tyco and Chemguard continue to believe that
PFAS chemicals at the levels found in the community do not cause
injuries to persons or property. The settlement is subject to
approval by the federal court presiding over the lawsuit and other
contingencies, and that process will take several months.
Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified
technology and multi-industrial company worldwide. The company
operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power
Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson
Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls
International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International
plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland.
JOHNSON MARK: District of Utah Narrows Claims in Smith FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah issued a memorandum decision and order
denying in part and granting in part the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the lawsuit entitled ROBERT P. SMITH v. JOHNSON MARK LLC,
LVNV FUNDING LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No.
1:20-cv-00032-RJS-DAO (D. Utah).
Defendants Mark and LVNV filed Motions to Dismiss asking the Court
to dismiss Plaintiff Smith's Complaint that claims they violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by sending him a
misleading debt collection letter.
Although not entirely clear, it appears Smith defaulted on a loan
he received from Credit One Bank, N.A., and Credit One later sold
that defaulted debt to LVNV. LVNV then hired Mark LLC to collect
the debt.
In May 2019, Mark sent Smith a debt collection letter concerning
the debt owed to Credit One. The Letter begins by explaining that
LVNV retained Mark to collect a "Total Amount Due: $589.91" for a
debt originating with Credit One. It ends by explaining it is an
attempt to collect a debt, that any information obtained will be
used for that purpose, and the Letter is a communication from a
debt collector.
Mr. Smith filed his Complaint against the Defendants in March 2020,
claiming the Letter violates the FDCPA by (1) being misleading in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e, and (2) overshadowing the
notice language required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g. Specifically,
he alleges the following language in the Letter violates the FDCPA
because it implies that the current amount due can increase when
the debt is actually static: "As of the date of this letter, the
Total Amount Due is shown above. For a current Total Amount due,
mail us a request or call our law firm."
The Defendants now move to dismiss Smith's Complaint under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In short, they
argue Smith fails to state an actionable FDCPA claim because the
language in the Letter is not misleading.
Judge Shelby states that Smith has stated an actionable Section
1692e claim. He finds that the Plaintiff makes three factual
allegations to support his Section 1692e claim. First, he alleges
the "Letter states a total amount due of $589.91." Second, he
alleges the Letter includes the Disputed Language. Third, he
alleges the Defendants are aware that during the collection of the
debt the balance will not vary at all. He maintains that the
Defendants use the Disputed Language as a deceptive collection
tactic to get the consumer to pay immediately.
Accordingly, the Court holds that Smith has stated a Section 1692e
claim because the least sophisticated consumer could interpret the
Disputed Language as Smith posits and that interpretation is
inaccurate, misleading, and a false representation made to assist
in the collection of a debt.
In addition, Judge Shelby opines that Smith has not stated an
actionable Section 1692g Claim. The Defendants argue Smith has
failed to state an actionable Section 1692g claim because the
Disputed Language is not misleading. Smith disagrees, arguing he
has stated a claim because the misleading Disputed Language would
cause the least sophisticated consumer to overlook his rights and
pay the debt to avoid additional fees and interest.
Neither party is correct, Judge Shelby says. As explained, the
Disputed Language is misleading. The effect of the Disputed
Language is the possibility for the least sophisticated consumer to
interpret it as meaning: (1) the Total Amount Due is subject to
change, and (2) that change will likely be upwards due to
nondisclosed fees and interest being added to the debt.
A misunderstanding about the nature of the debt is not the same,
however, as being confused about the debtor's validation rights
under Section 1692g, Judge Shelby explains. Rather, as case law
makes clear, a viable "overshadowing" claim must involve actions by
a debt collector that would confuse the least sophisticated
consumer into misunderstanding his right to validate the debt.
Accordingly, Smith's argument misses the mark because the confusion
caused by the Disputed Language is unrelated to his validation
rights under Section 1692g. Indeed, it seems the least
sophisticated consumer would be more likely to exercise his
validation rights if he believed the debt was increasing.
Hence, the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are granted in part and
denied in part. The Motions are granted as to Smith's Section 1692g
claim, and that claim is dismissed without prejudice. The Motions
are denied as to Smith's Section 1692e claim.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
Jan. 7, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3h82fe9 from
Leagle.com.
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Zhang Investor Reminds of February 9 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Kandi Technologies Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ: KNDI) between March 15, 2019 and November 27, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=kandi-technologies-group-inc-2&id=2529
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=kandi-technologies-group-inc-2&id=2529
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the February 9, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that - Kandi artificially inflated its reported revenues through
undisclosed related party transactions, or otherwise had
relationships with key customers that indicated those customers did
not have an arms-length relationship with Kandi; the majority of
Kandi's sales in the past year had been to undisclosed related
parties and/or parties with such a close relationship and history
with Kandi that it cast doubt on the arms-length nature of their
relationship; all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably
likely to cast doubt on the validity of Kandi's reported revenues
and, in turn, have a foreseeable negative impact on the Company's
reputation and valuation; and as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. According to the suit, these true details were disclosed by
a market research firm.
Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may
retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.
Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
KELLER WILLIAMS: Asks Court to Stay Ruling on Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CODY MAX BECKER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., et al., Case No. 9:19-cv-81451-AHS
(S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to stay issuing a
decision/ruling on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in Transunion
LLC v. Ramirez, Case No. 20-297.
KWRI requests that this matter be stayed pending a decision in
Ramirez because Ramirez will determine whether Article III and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 permit a damages class action
simply based on a class representative's ability to achieve
standing. A ruling in Ramirez in favor of TransUnion will defeat
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification because the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals has held that even the actual receipt of a
single ringless voicemail allegedly in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) is not enough to establish standing
The Plaintiff asserts that he received a single ringless voicemail
from Defendant Kristan Cole which he argues violates the TCPA. The
only claim remaining in the Complaint is Count II. In Count II, the
Plaintiff argues the single ringless voicemail from Kristan Cole
violates TCPA and he attempts to hold KWRI vicariously liable for
it. The Plaintiff also attempts to represent the following
nationwide class:
"all persons within the United States, who, on September 28,
2019 were delivered the following prerecorded voicemail to
their cellular telephone and were not real estate agents at a
Keller Williams Realty, Inc. franchise at that time:
"Hey there this is Kristan Cole with Keller Williams. I
wanted to invite you to be my guest at a real estate growth
class I'm teaching herein Sarasota. October 21st and 22nd. I
don't know about you but with the competition in real estate
right now, I know a lot of agents aren't making the money
that they want to make. So if you want to make more money,
come and be my guest. We'll also have a top agent mastermind
on day two to help create your own success plan. To sign up
as my guest, no there's no gimmick. Go to KCNguest.com or
text me or call me back at 512-944-9940. Hope to see you
there."
Keller Williams Realty is an American technology and international
real estate franchise with headquarters in Austin, Texas. They
claimed to be the largest real estate franchise in number of agents
and sales volume for 2018 and 2019 It is operated by a holding
company named KWx which was formed in 2020.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 11, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Lp0lOJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
Counsel for Defendant Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
Andrew J. Marchese, Esq.
Holly M. Hamilton, Esq.
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN & GOGGIN
2400 East Commercial Blvd., Suite 1100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
Telephone: (954) 847-4920
Facsimile: (954) 627-6640
E-mail: ajmarchese@mdwcg.com
mdlincoff@mdwcg.com
hxhamilton@mdwcg.com
slthompson@mdwcg.com
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
Eisenband Law, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 533-4092
E-mail: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO LAW
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Lori A. Heim, Esq.
Bryan D. Hull, Esq.
BUSH I ROSS, P.A.
1801 North Highland Avenue
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 204-6444
Facsimile: (813) 223-9620
E-mail: lheim@bushross.com
tmcgowen@bushross.com
lhoman@bushross.com
LENOVO GROUP: Must Face Class Action Over Computer Device Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Lenovo can't dodge a putative class action
claiming it sold defective two-in-one computer devices, a Maryland
federal judge has ruled, saying the company's assertions that the
devices are good for 25,000 "open-close cycles" is specific enough
for consumers to pursue claims of fraudulent concealment. [GN]
LENOVO US: Maryland Court Refuses to Dismiss Singh Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled NEHA SINGH, et al. v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES)
INC., Case No. CCB-20-1082 (D. Md.), the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
The lawsuit concerns an allegedly defective series of "Yoga"
two-in-one tablet and laptop computer devices manufactured by
Lenovo, a North Carolina corporation. It covers all 700-series
models, including models 700, 710, 720, and 730, all of which use
the same "dual-hinge system" to flex into different positions to
function at times like a laptop and at times like a tablet. The
hinge system is supposed to sustain at least 25,000 "open-close
cycles," which equates to approximately eight to ten years of use.
The Plaintiffs contend that the devices are defective, that they
prematurely and unexpectedly crack and fail, rendering the hinges
inoperable. When the hinges fail, this causes optical cables to
come loose, the screen to flicker, and the plastic surrounding the
screen -- and sometimes the screen itself -- to crack, rendering
the devices inoperable.
The Plaintiffs allege Lenovo knew of the problem before it sold the
products and chose to conceal the defect. This knowledge
purportedly came to Lenovo through multiple sources, including
Lenovo's own durability testing, repair data, replacement data, and
consumer complaints. Additionally, the Plaintiffs assert that
Lenovo's redesign of the hinge on its Yoga 900 series model, which
uses a watchband hinge, indicates Lenovo knew the hinge system used
in the 700-series was defective.
Lenovo provides an express one-year warranty, limited to product
replacement or repair, that its products will be free from defects
in materials and workmanship under normal use. The Plaintiffs argue
that this warranty fails of its essential purpose, as at best it
allows consumers to replace one defective hinge with another, and
is, therefore, "unconscionable and unenforceable."
On March 27, 2020, Plaintiffs Singh of Maryland and Sandra Cox of
Missouri filed the class action pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act against Lenovo, asserting seven causes of action: (1)
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (2) breach of express
warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty; (4) violation of the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act; (5) violation of the Missouri
Merchandise Practices Act; (6) unjust enrichment; and (7)
fraudulent omission or concealment.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class under Rule
23(b)(2) or (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Should
the court not approve a nationwide class, the Plaintiffs would then
seek to certify statewide classes representing consumers in
Maryland and Missouri, where the named Plaintiffs reside. They seek
damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief, as well as an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.
In the case, the Plaintiffs allege that the defect in the Yoga,
which Lenovo concealed, completely deprived them of the device's
defining feature: the ability to use their Device as either a
tablet or a laptop, i.e. that they were substantially deprived of
the benefit of the contract due to the concealed defect, which
Lenovo knew would manifest after the expiration of the warranty. In
that sense, the Plaintiffs' allegations are similar to those in
Bussian v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. and Carlson v. General Motors, 883
F.2d 287, 292 (4th Cir. 1989), and establish the overreaching that
is necessary for a finding of substantive unconscionability,
District Judge Catherine C. Blake opines.
The Court, therefore, concludes that Singh has adequately alleged
unconscionability sufficient to defeat Lenovo's motion to dismiss.
It also holds that Lenovo's motion to dismiss is denied as to both
Plaintiffs Singh's and Sandra Cox's breach of express warranty
claims.
Lenovo also seeks dismissal of the Plaintiffs' statutory consumer
protection claims and their fraud by omission claims for failure to
satisfy the heightened pleading requirements under Rule Procedure
9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs do not
dispute that fraud claims generally must be pled with
particularity, but they contend that the standard for pleading
fraud by omission is somewhat relaxed.
In the case, the Plaintiffs claim they have adequately put Lenovo
on notice by pleading the who, what, where, when, and how of the
alleged fraud: specifically, that Lenovo (who) knew of the
defective hinge (what) prior to sale (when), which it omitted from
all the channels in which it sold devices (where) and which
resulted in concealment and failure to disclose (how). And,
importantly, the complaint relies on pre-discovery evidence of, for
example, consumer complaints, to provide Lenovo fair notice of the
issues about which it will need to prepare a defense.
Judge Blake holds that the Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient
to state a claim for fraudulent omission and to withstand a
challenge under Rule 9(b)'s pleading requirements. She adds that
Singh's allegations of a "manifestation of loss" are sufficient to
withstand a motion to dismiss, and that Singh and Cox have
adequately stated a claim for fraudulent concealment.
For the reasons stated in Memorandum, Lenovo's motion to dismiss is
denied in its entirety.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Jan. 4, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyxawutu from Leagle.com.
LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Menominee Indian Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin,
Menominee Indian Gaming Authority d/b/a Menominee Casino Resort,
Wolf River Development Company, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lexington Insurance Company;
Underwriters at Lloyd's - Syndicates: ASC 1414, XLC 2003, TAL 1183,
MSP 318, ATL1861, KLN 510, AGR 3268; Underwriters at Lloyd's -
Syndicate: CNP 4444; Underwriters at Lloyd's - Aspen Specialty
Insurance Company; Underwriters at Lloyd's - Syndicates: KLN 0510,
ATL 1861, ASC 1414, QBE 1886, MSP 0318, APL 1969, CHN 2015, XLC
2003; Underwriters at Lloyd's - Syndicate: BRT 2987; Underwriters
at Lloyd's - Syndicates: KLN 0510, TMK 1880, BRT 2987, BRT 2988,
CNP 4444, ATL 1861, Neon Worldwide Property Consortium, AUW 0609,
TAL 1183, AUL 1274; Homeland Insurance Company of New York;
Hallmark Specialty Insurance Company; Endurance Worldwide Insurance
Ltd t/as Sompo International; Arch Specialty Insurance Company;
Evanston Insurance Company; Allied World National Assurance
Company; Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company; Landmark American
Insurance Company; SRU Doe Insurers 1-20; Case No. RG20080933, was
removed from the Alameda County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 11,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00231 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.
Lexington Insurance Company -- https://www.lexingtoninsurance.com/
-- is a surplus lines insurance company wholly owned by AIG.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard Joseph Doren, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN CRUTCHER
333 S Grand Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 229-7038
Fax: (213) 629-7038
Email: rdoren@gibsondunn.com
MARATHON REFINING: Parties Ask Court to Continue Class Cert. Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE WOOD, ANTHONY
ALFARO, and AARON DIETRICH on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS SERVICES LLC,
and DOES 1 THROUGH AND INCLUDING 25, Case No. 4:19-cv-04287-YGR
(N.D. Cal.), the parties ask the Court to continue the class
certification and expert discovery deadlines set in the May 18,
2020 order.
The parties make the following stipulated requests:
1. Class Certification Deadlines:
That the Court continue the class certification dates as
follows: opening brief due by July 2, 2021; responsive
brief due by August 16, 2021; and reply brief due on
September 6, 2021 with the hearing date for the motion set
for the week of September 26, 2021, or other available
date thereafter for which the Court is available.
2. Expert Discovery Deadlines:
That the Court continue the deadline for disclosure of
opening expert reports to July 2, 2021 and for rebuttal
expert reports to August 2, 2021, and continue the expert
discovery cutoff date to August 31, 2021.
On May 18, 2020, the Court ordered that a hearing on Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification be held on May 11, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
The Court further ordered that opening briefs in support of the
motion for class certification be submitted by February 16, 2021;
opposition briefs by March 30, 2021; and reply briefs by April 20,
2021. The Court further ordered that a deadline for disclosure of
experts' reports is February 16, 2021 and for rebuttal experts'
reports is March 9, 2021. The court further ordered that the expert
discovery cut off is March 23, 2021.
A copy of the Parties motion dated Jan. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XHDC2C at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Defendant Marathon Refining Logistics Services
LLC, are:
Kristina L. Hillman, Esq.
Jannah V. Manansala, Esq.
Alexander S. Nazarov, Esq.
Andrew D. Weaver, Esq.
WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
1375 55th Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone (510) 337-1001
Facsimile (510) 337-1023
E-Mail: courtnotices@unioncounsel.net
khillman@unioncounsel.net
jmanansala@unioncounsel.net
anazarov@unioncounsel.net
aweaver@unioncounsel.net
MARS WRIGLEY: Faces Class Action Over Dove Ice Cream Bars
---------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that candy maker Mars Wrigley has been hit with
another proposed class action in New York federal court accusing it
of deceptively marketing its Dove ice cream bars, alleging the
"chocolate" in the bar is made from vegetable oil and not real
cocoa butter. [GN]
MAYO CLINIC: Kuhr Seeks Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE KUHR, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. MAYO CLINIC
JACKSONVILLE, a Florida not for profit corporation and PROFESSIONAL
SERVICE BUREAU, INC., a Foreign corporation, Case No.
3:19-cv-00453-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order: granting her motion for final approval of class
action settlement.
The complaint says, after engaging in limited motion practice and
in-depth discovery, Plaintiff and Defendant began arm's length
settlement discussions. After several failed attempts and extensive
negotiations, the Parties finally achieved the proposed class
settlement.
The Settlement Agreement:
-- Established a Total Settlement Amount o f$1,015,502.20.
This amount will pay Settlement Class Members a cash
settlement payment for the release of all statutory,
common law, and related claims alleged or that could have
been alleged in the action against the Defendant that
relate, concern, arise from, or pertain in any way to the
Defendant Mayo's "balance billing" or Defendant PSB's
assistance with the practice.
-- Defendant Mayo also agreed to pay the administration costs
up to $50,000.00, which proved to be more than enough to
cover the full cost of administration.
Plaintiff Kuhr alleged that the Defendants Mayo and PSB engaged in
illegal medical billing practices or "balance billing." The
Plaintiff alleged that this conduct violated state and federal debt
collection and consumer protection statutes.
Mayo Clinic Florida is a comprehensive medical center belonging to
the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. It is one of three Mayo
campuses along with Phoenix/Scottsdale, Arizona and Rochester,
Minnesota. PBS was founded in 1972. The company's line of business
includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other
insurance-related issues.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action
settlement dated Jan. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://bit.ly/3sqybn5 at no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class, are:
Jordan Shaw, Esq.
ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 2150
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 989-6333
Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com
kslaven@zpllp.com
mperez@zpllp.com
medmonson@zpllp.com
MDL 2557: 5 Auto Repair Insurance Antitrust Suits Remanded
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
2557, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation approves the remand of five cases in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to their
respective transferor courts thereby concluding that the transferee
court's remand order of the remaining actions is warranted and that
the view of Judge Gregory A. Presnell on the appropriate path for
resolving the few remaining state law tortious interference claims
is warranted by the dismissal of the vast majority of the claims in
this MDL.
The actions allege an industry-wide conspiracy spearheaded by State
Farm to suppress the reimbursement rates applicable to automobile
collision repair shops, including complex issues concerning the
role of "direct repair programs."
Certain defendants in the five actions moved under Panel Rule 10.2
to vacate the Panel's prior order conditionally remanding these
actions to their respective transferor courts. Defendants
represented that plaintiffs support retaining these actions in the
MDL for adjudication of the remaining state law claims. Plaintiffs
did not respond to the motion to vacate.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 15, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3bq7oRy
MDL 2570: Smith's IVC Filters Suit Transferred to S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: Cook Medical, Inc., IVC Filters Marketing,
Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2570,
Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, has entered an order under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407
transferring Smith v. Cook Medical, LLC, et al. Case No.
20-cv-02911 (N.D. Ga., July 13, 2020) to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana and, with the consent of that
court, assigned them to Judge Richard L. Young for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. Said civil case was
administratively closed on August 11, 2020 after Judge Amy
Totenberg granted a stipulated motion to stay proceedings pending
this MDL decision.
The original Smith case involves allegations that defects in the
design of the Defendants' inferior vena cava filters make them more
likely to fracture, migrate, tilt or perforate the vena cava,
causing injury.
Plaintiff Smith moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate a prior order
that conditionally transferred her action to MDL No. 2570. The
Cook Defendants oppose the motion to vacate. The Panel held that
the action involves common questions of fact with the actions
transferred to MDL No. 2570, and that transfer will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 15, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/38v9cH3
MERCEDES-BENZ: Attorneys Seek Dismissal of Sunroof Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Mercedes sunroof class action
lawsuit should allegedly be dismissed because it's only a "copycat
of three failed class action complaints filed against
Mercedes-Benz" over cracked sunroofs.
That view is held by attorneys for Mercedes-Benz who filed a motion
to dismiss the class action that alleges the automaker should pay
at least $200 million for sunroofs that shatter.
The sunroof class action lawsuit, which includes all Mercedes-Benz
vehicles purchased between 2010 to the present, alleges it can cost
$2,000 to replace the panoramic sunroof.
However, the customer who sued claims he was told it would cost
$9,000 to replace his 2015 Mercedes-Benz ML350 sunroof after it
allegedly cracked.
The plaintiff also claims Mercedes offers $250 to $500 as goodwill
payments but customers must allegedly agree not to sue the
automaker.
In its motion to dismiss the Mercedes sunroof class action lawsuit,
the automaker alleges the lawsuit doesn't make much sense and is
difficult to understand.
According to Mercedes, the plaintiff makes vague references to
cracked sunroof complaints the plaintiff found online, but nothing
indicates his sunroof has defects, let alone defects in hundreds of
thousands of Mercedes vehicles.
Mercedes argues the plaintiff may say the automaker concealed some
kind of undefined sunroof defect, but the class action lawsuit
alleges nothing specific about what Mercedes knew, when it knew,
who knew and how the automaker learned about the alleged defect.
The plaintiff also allegedly doesn't plead anything about any
misrepresentations made to him, and says nothing about the purchase
price of the vehicle or even when it was purchased. Mercedes says
it doesn't even know if the plaintiff still owns the 2015
Mercedes-Benz ML350.
Attorneys for the automaker also attacked multiple conflicting
statements in the sunroof class action, including the incident
itself.
"First, he alleges the sunroof in his vehicle cracked on March 3,
2020, 'while Plaintiff [i.e., Bruce Pickens] was driving.' He
alleges glass 'spray[ed] throughout the car and onto [him],' but
does not allege he was personally injured. He next alleges his
sister was driving the vehicle on Interstate 94 in Illinois when
the sunroof cracked. He alleges glass fell on his sister, but does
not allege she was injured." - Mercedes motion to dismiss
According to Mercedes-Benz, it is "unclear whether plaintiff was
even a passenger in the vehicle in this second version of events."
As for vehicle warranties, attorneys for Mercedes-Benz points out
the warranty says, "[g]lass breakage or scratches are not covered
unless positive physical proof of a manufacturing defect can be
established." According to Mercedes, the lawsuit doesn't adequately
allege any defects exist.
The automaker also argues the sunroof class action doesn't identify
specific vehicle models or model years affected by the alleged
defects and does not limit the vehicles to those equipped with
factory-installed sunroofs of any kind, let alone panoramic
sunroofs.
The motion to dismiss alleges the plaintiff filed the class action
based on nothing more than unspecified "research" and a "cursory
internet search."
And even though the plaintiff allegedly copied previously dismissed
class actions against Mercedes regarding the sunroofs, the
plaintiff allegedly never mentions those prior actions.
Mercedes also argues the sunroof class action is missing the type
of factual allegations required to plausibly plead any of the
claims he makes, including the many fraud-based claims.
"The pertinent factual allegations that are pled are wildly
inconsistent, as are plaintiff's descriptions of the putative
classes he seeks to represent. And, in many cases, the allegations
are so riddled with typographical and grammatical errors that the
paragraphs simply make no sense as pled." - Mercedes-Benz
The Mercedes sunroof class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division: Pickens, et al., v. Daimler AG, et al.
The plaintiff is represented by the Washington Law Offices, P.C.,
of Chicago. [GN]
MHR FUND: Houman Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Howard Draft, et al.
The case is styled as Eliot Houman, Jack Barouh, Kenneth Novick,
Nicolae Barbulescu, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MHR Fund Management LLC, Howard Draft, John D. Harkey
Jr., Mark H. Rachesky, MHR Institutional Partners II LP, MHR
Institutional Partners IIA LP, Michael Weiser, Tim McInerney,
Timothy G Rothwell, Case No. 2021-0025 (Del. Chancery Ct., Jan. 11,
2021).
The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties".
MHR Fund Management -- https://www.mhrfund.com/ -- is a private
equity firm focusing on leveraged buyout and distressed securities
transactions in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Jenkins, Esq.
Julie M O'Dell, Esq.
SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
PO Box 410
Wilmington, DE 19899
Phone: (302) 652-8400
Fax: (302) 652-8405
Email: daj@skjlaw.com
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Manning Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended December 3, 2020, that the appeal in the
putative class action suit initiated by Chris Manning, remains
pending.
On June 13, 2019, current Micron employee, Chris Manning, filed a
putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Micron employees subject
to the Idaho Wage Claim Act who earned a performance-based bonus
after the conclusion of 2018 whose performance rating was
calculated based upon a mandatory percentage distribution range of
performance ratings.
On July 12, 2019, Manning and three other Company employees filed
an amended complaint as putative class action representatives.
On behalf of themselves and the putative class, Manning and the
three other plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Idaho
Wage Claim Act, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and fraud.
On June 24, 2020, the court entered judgment in favor of Micron
based on the statute of limitations, and the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on July 23, 2020.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Micron Technology, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
markets dynamic random access memory chips (DRAMs), static random
access memory chips (SRAMs), flash memory, semiconductor
components, and memory modules. The company is based in Boise,
Idaho.
NATIONAL CONGRESS: Bilek's Bid to Compel Discovery Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Written Discovery and
Testimony from Defendant Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., in the
lawsuit captioned as MARY BILEK, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL CONGRESS OF
EMPLOYERS, INC., NATIONAL BENEFIT BUILDERS, INC., ACCESSONE
CONSUMER HEALTH, INC., UNIFIED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, HEALTH
INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC., and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
Case No. 18C3083 (N.D. Ill.).
Preliminarily, the Court recognizes that the Plaintiff has filed a
Second Motion to Compel in which she seeks to compel HII to answer
interrogatories and produce documents requested in the same batch
of written discovery that is the subject of the Order. The
Plaintiff says her Second Motion addresses discovery requests that
HII had committed to respond to or supplement before she filed her
first Motion. The Plaintiff's Second Motion is being briefed. The
Court is entering the Order on the Plaintiff's first Motion because
the Motion has been fully briefed for some time, and it appears the
Court can resolve the issues raised in it separately from the
issues addressed in the Plaintiff's Second Motion.
Secondly, later the same day that the Plaintiff filed her Motion
and then again a week after that, HII supplemented its answers to
the interrogatories and requests for production that were at issue
in the Plaintiff's Motion. HII also reformulated a number of its
responses and objections, probably in response to arguments the
Plaintiff had made in meet and confer sessions before she filed her
Motion or in the Motion itself. In response to what HII had done,
the Plaintiff then filed written supplements to her Motion in which
she addressed HII's supplemental responses to her discovery
requests.
The Court agrees with the Plaintiff that many of HII's original
responses to her interrogatories and requests for production were
improper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, raised legal
procedural and substantive objections that had been addressed
earlier in the case, and were more improper than some of HII's
supplemental responses. It also agrees that HII's supplemental
responses were tendered late in the discovery process and after the
Plaintiff's Motion was filed.
For its part, HII would say that the Plaintiff jumped the gun by
filing her first Motion, that the parties were still meeting and
conferring about some of her discovery requests or HII at least had
agreed to produce some documents that could narrow the parties'
disagreements. HII also says the parties continued to meet and
confer after the Plaintiff's Motion was filed.
Under the circumstances, the Court will address the propriety of
the Plaintiff's written discovery and HII's responses to it on the
merits and not rely on her argument that HII waived its ability to
contest her discovery either because it originally asserted
improper objections or that it was late in doing so. That is not to
say, though, that the Court will continue to overlook such
discovery defaults in the future in this or other cases.
The Court ruled upon the Plaintiff's Interrogatories as follows:
-- ROG No. 1. Motion granted. HII's objections are overruled;
-- ROG No. 5. Motion denied. In ROG No. 5, the Plaintiff asks
HII to "[identify all third parties that develop business
for you or your codefendants in the case, through
placement of outbound telephone calls.";
-- ROG No. 6. Motion granted. The Court finds that this
interrogatory is properly calibrated to matters that are
relevant to the claims or defenses in this case including
with respect to class discovery for the reasons explained
by the Plaintiff in her written submissions; and
-- ROG No. 8. Motion granted but only to the extent that HII
is required to "identify the entities whose Life
Insurance; Short Term Medical; Sickness & Hospital Plans
products are available through HII, and to describe any
groups or bundles of such products or services that are
sold together with other products or services."
Otherwise, the Motion is denied.
The Court agrees with HII that ROG No. 5 as written is overly broad
and requests a broad swath of information that is not relevant to a
claim or defense in this case. Although all discovery is a fishing
expedition to some extent, the Plaintiff has cast her net too
broadly with this interrogatory asking for the identities of all
third parties that develop business for HII or its co-defendants.
The Court ruled upon the Plaintiff's Requests for Production
("RFPs") as follows: RFP Nos. 1 and 2. Motion denied as to RFP No.
1. HII says it "has located no responsive documents relating to the
Plaintiff following a reasonable and diligent search conducted in
accordance with its obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure." The Court cannot order HII to produce documents it says
it does not have.
RFP No. 2 is a more roundabout way of discovering whether HII has
any documents that relate to the claims asserted by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff's Motion is granted as to RFP No. 2 as modified by
the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is seeking "documents concerning any
products or services that fit the descriptions given to Plaintiff
during the two calls she received that resulted in a quote."
RFP No. 3. Motion granted, and HII's objections are overruled. HII
says this request is no longer in issue so it does not respond to
the Plaintiff's argument as to the request in her Motion. But the
Plaintiff clearly moved to compel a response to RFP No. 3. RFP No.
3 seeks production of documents, manuals, and other materials that
describe the system that salespeople use to sell products and
services when they log into HII's portal. The information is
relevant, or at least potentially relevant, to the Plaintiff's
claims. The discovery is proportional or can be made so if the
parties meet and confer about acceptable parameters.
The Court, again, appreciates that HII says it had nothing to do
with the alleged conduct from which Plaintiff's claims arise
involving Rising Eagles, non-party Health Advisors of America, Inc.
("HAA"), or assumed names under which the Plaintiff claims HAA did
business such as Health Enrollment Center, Enrollment Center of
America. But HII's motion to dismiss was denied, the Plaintiff's
claims are proceeding, and she has brought forth at least some
evidence and made arguments that at the very least challenge HII's
position that it had nothing to do with anything at issue in the
case.
RFP No. 4. Motion granted. HII's objections are overruled. The
Plaintiff characterizes this as a key discovery request in this
case, and the Court agrees. HII re-characterizes RFP No. 4 as a
request for contracts that exist between HII and Health Enrollment
Center or identified related individuals. HII's characterization of
RFP No. 4 is too narrow and does not fairly meet the substance of
what the Plaintiff is trying to discover.
RFP No. 8. Motion is granted, and HII's objections are overruled if
what the Plaintiff is seeking is keys, data dictionaries, or other
like materials necessary for her or her attorneys or consultants to
interpret or understand "document data that includes information
concerning communications or indicia of consent (or lack of
consent)" that HII produces in response to the Plaintiff's other
requests.
RFP No. 9. Motion granted. HII's objections are overruled. HII says
it "will produce its policies regarding telemarketing sales
responsive to the request" but "without waiving the foregoing
objections." Neither the Court nor the Plaintiff understands what
that means. If it means that HII's production will not respond in
full to the substance of RFP No. 9, then HII's response is
improper.
RFP No. 12. Motion granted. RFP No. 12 seeks production of HII's do
not call policies, practices, and procedures. This clearly is
relevant and proportional discovery in this case.
RFP Nos. 18 and 26. Motion granted. HII's objections are overruled.
The Plaintiff apparently offered during the meet and confer process
to limit one or both requests to matters involving HAA, but HII
rejected that proposal because it says it has no relationship with
HAA.
RFP No. 19. Motion denied. HII's objections based on overbreadth,
burden, relevance, and proportionality are sustained. This request
for "all communications and other documents concerning marketing
goods or services by telephone" is too broad if, in fact, HII is in
the business of marketing goods and services by telephone in one
way or the other as Plaintiff suspects and alleges.
RFP No. 25. Motion granted. HII appears to have withdrawn its
original objection to producing its document destruction and/or
retention policies. If not, then those objections are overruled,
and it must these policies.
The Plaintiff's Motion is granted in part to the extent that HII
must produce a corporate designee to testify about the matters
identified in the Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) notice. In addition,
HII's objections to Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) topics are
overruled.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated Jan. 4,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yydccdju from
Leagle.com.
NEW RESIDENTIAL: Borrowers Slam Predatory Mortgage Servicing
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Dutcher and Nicole Cannon, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. New Residential
Investment Corporation, New Residential Mortgage LLC, NRM
Acquisition LLC, NRM Acquisition II LLC, Shellpoint Partners LLC,
and Newrez LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-10853 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 21, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Real
Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA).
New Residential Investment Corporation (NRZ) is a publicly traded
real estate investment trust (REIT) primarily focused on servicing
residential mortgages. NRZ's wholly-owned subsidiary, New
Residential Mortgage LLC (NRM) acquired the mortgage servicing
rights of Shellpoint Partners LLC), the parent company of NewRez
LLC operating as Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing.
NRZ engaged in an aggressive campaign to increase its mortgage
servicing portfolio which duplicated in size in less than a year.
However, NRZ failed to implement servicing policies and procedures,
specifically, identifying and honoring pre-existing modifications
and forbearance agreements, recognizing payments made to prior
servicers during servicing transfer periods, charging its borrowers
late fees for timely payments made to prior servicers during those
transfer periods, charging excessive and unreasonable property
inspection fees, conducting adequate escrow analysis during the
pendency of borrowers' bankruptcy proceeding resulting in escrow
shortages and payment shocks, failing to implement proper policies
and procedures and/or knowingly using incorrect loan data from its
predecessors servicers in order to profiteer from previously waived
and/or illegal fees and charging its borrowers illegal payment
processing fees for online or over the phone payments.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated RESPA by
failing to timely and adequately respond to Plaintiffs' Qualified
Written Requests concerning the violations and otherwise failing to
take any corrective actions.
Plaintiffs are individuals who are/or/were borrowers subject to
NRZ's mortgage servicing practices. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI LAW, PLLC.
630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
New York, NY 10111
Telephone: (332) 334-9202
Facsimile: (332) 777-1200
E-Mail: adrian@gucovschi-law.com
NEW YORK: Request for Judicial Intervention Filed in Espaillat Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A request for judicial intervention was filed on December 30, 2020,
in the case styled ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, individually as a subway
rider; MICHAEL SCHWEISNBERG, individually as a subway rider and as
President of the 504 DEMOCRATIC CLUB; and ROBERT KELLY,
individually as a subway rider and as Vice President of LOCAL 100
TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF GREATER NEW YORK, On behalf of classes
of subway riders, similarly situated v. PATRICK FOYE, as Chief
Executive Officer of THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, and
SARA FEINBERG, as the President of the NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT
AUTHORITY, Case No. 161335/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York County).
The Defendants were ordered to show cause on January 12, 2021, at
IAS Part 23, Courtroom 307, 80 Centre Street, New York, New York,
on a videoconference link to be provided by the Court.
The lawsuit is brought over Defendants' failure to provide lunch
relief for Station Agents, and locking booths during Station
Agents' lunch period, unless and until public hearings are
conducted concerning each such partial closing pursuant to Sections
1204(15) and 1205(5) of the New York Public Authorities Law.
The case is assigned to Judge W. Franc Perry.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is a public benefit
corporation responsible for public transportation in the New York
City metropolitan area of the U.S. state of New York.
The New York City Transit Authority is a public authority in the
U.S. state of New York that operates public transportation in New
York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
ADVOCATE FOR JUSTICE
225 Broadway, Suite 1902
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 285-1400
NIKOLA CORP: Mersho Files 9th Circuit Appeal
--------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs George Mersho, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled George Mersho, et al. v.
Nikola Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01797-SPL, in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
The action arises from alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by Defendants Nikola Corporation (comprised of
merged companies VectoIQ and Nikola) and its officers, founder of
Nikola and Executive Chairman Trevor R. Milton; former VectoIQ
Chief Executive Officer and current Director Steve Girsky; former
VectoIQ Chief Financial Officer Steve Shindler; Nikola CEO,
President, and Director Mark A. Russell; and Nikola CFO Kim J.
Brady.
The District Court action from which this petition arises is
entitled: Borteanu v. Nikola Corp., et al., pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona, Case No.
2:20-cv-01797-SPL, the Honorable Steven P. Logan presiding.
Petitioners are statutory movants in the action.
Plaintiffs Mersho, et al. seek a writ of mandamus that (1) vacates
the district court's December 15, 2020 Order, (2) directs the
district court to appoint Petitioners as lead plaintiff, and (3)
clarifies that groups are explicitly permitted to serve as lead
plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, as long as they satisfy the adequacy and typicality
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The appellate case is captioned as George Mersho, et al v.
USDC-AZP, Case No. 20-73819, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 30, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners George Mersho, Vincent Chau, and Stanley
Karczynski are represented by:
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com
jake@blockleviton.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
NORTH MIAMI, FL: Faces Class Action Over Water Bill Overcharges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lidia Dinkova, writing for Law.com, reports that the city of North
Miami is facing a putative class action for allegedly overcharging
water bills to certain condominium and apartment properties.
The city is alleged to be overcharging condominium and apartment
buildings that use a single meter for the entire building, instead
of a meter per unit. [GN]
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: La Caria Class Settlement Wins Initial Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE DIANE LA CARIA, v.
NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00317-GMN-DJA
(D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Gloria M. Navarro entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Settlement as follows:
a. The proposed settlement agreement is preliminary
approved as fair and adequate;
b. Within 30 days of this Order, the Claims Administrator,
First Class, Inc., shall direct notice to class members
via direct mail, which includes the Notice Form and Claim
Form;
c. The deadline for class members to submit a claim ("Opt-
Out and Objection Deadline"), opt-out, or file an
objection shall be 45 days after the Notice Deadline;
d. The deadline for Class Counsel to file a motion for
attorneys' fees and expenses shall be 30 days after
entry of this Order; and
e. A final fairness hearing shall take place on Tuesday,
May 11, 2021, at 10:00 am in Las Vegas Courtroom 7D
before Judge Gloria M. Navarro. The matter of Class
Counsels' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses will
be considered at the final fairness hearing; and
2. denying as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment and the Defendant's Motion for Certification of
Interlocutory Appeal and for Stay of Proceedings.
On October 6, 2020, the parties reached a settlement after
arms-length negotiations. Under the Proposed Settlement, Defendant
agrees to pay the following:
(1) $40,000 (which is at least 1% its net worth) to the
class, whereby each class member who does not opt-out and
makes a timely claim will receive a pro rata share,
(2) the reasonable costs of notice and administration, and
(3) $5,000.00 to the Class Representative, consisting of
statutory damages of $1,000.00, pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§1692k(a)(2) and an incentive award of $4,000.00, and (5)
any reasonable attorney's fees, costs or expenses awarded
by the Court to Class Counsel per 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)
(3).
On February 21, 2018, the Plaintiff filed her Complaint, alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA( as part
of a putative class action on behalf of herself and similarly
situated persons. On May 28, 2020, the Court granted the
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify the Class as:
"(i) all Nevada residents to whom NLS sent a letter (ii)
which was not returned as undeliverable (iii) in an attempt
to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household
purposes as shown by the Defendants or the creditors' records
(iv) who [were] left a voicemail message from NLS (v) and
were not notified during the call that "the debt collector is
attempting to collect a debt and that any information
obtained will be used for that purpose" (vi) during the one
year prior to the filing of this lawsuit."
NLS is a debt collection organization established in 2001 that
provides, among other services, first and third-party collections,
customer care programs, and location services to clientele
nationwide.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XHu9IC at no extra charge.[CC]
ONEPIECE WORK: Faces Beal Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN BEAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VICKEY LI d/b/a ONEPIECE WORK; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00030-JLS-DEB
(S.D. Cal., Jan. 8, 2021) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
making unsolicited calls pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Vickey Li d/b/a Onepiece Work co-working spaces to startup
companies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
PENN CREDIT: Matthews Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penn Credit
Corporation. The case is styled as Lamar Matthews, individually,
and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers v. Penn
Credit Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00050-JPW (M.D. Pa., Jan. 11,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Penn Credit -- https://penncredit.com/ -- is a nationwide accounts
receivables management firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Benedict, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW, LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Phone: (201) 500-6961
Email: steven@zemellawllc.com
PINTEREST INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of January 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS)
between May 16, 2019 and November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the January 22, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline in the
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Pinterest investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Pinterest class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1995.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Pinterest's addressable market in the U.S. was reaching
its maximum capacity; (2) as a result, Pinterest's future ability
to monetize on U.S. average revenue per user decelerated
significantly; (3) Pinterest was at an increased risk of losing
advertising revenue; and (4) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
22, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1995.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
PIONEER NATURAL: Facing Gupta Putative Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Natural Resources Company said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 5,
2021, that the company is facing multiple suits including a
putative class action suit entitled, Gupta v. Parsley Energy, Inc.
et al, No. 656659/2020.
On October 20, 2020, Pioneer Natural Resources Company, a Delaware
corporation, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger by and
among Pioneer, Pearl First Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation
and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pioneer, Pearl Second Merger Sub
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Pioneer, Pearl Opco Merger Sub LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pioneer,
Parsley Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Parsley Energy,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things, (i) the
merger of Merger Sub Inc. into Parsley, with Parsley continuing as
the surviving corporation, (ii) simultaneously with the First
Parsley Merger, the merger of Opco Merger Sub LLC into Opco LLC,
with Opco LLC continuing as the surviving company, and (iii)
immediately following the First Parsley Merger and the Opco Merger,
the merger of the Surviving Corporation into Merger Sub LLC, with
Merger Sub LLC continuing as the surviving entity and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Pioneer.
As a result of the Mergers, Parsley will become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Pioneer. On December 4, 2020, Parsley and Pioneer
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a definitive
joint proxy statement/prospectus for the solicitation of proxies in
connection with the special meetings of Pioneer's stockholders and
Parsley's stockholders, each to be held on January 12, 2021, to
vote upon, among other things, matters necessary to complete the
Mergers.
Following the filing of the preliminary joint proxy
statement/prospectus on November 23, 2020, 12 complaints have been
filed with respect to the Mergers as of January 5, 2021: three in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
captioned as Wang v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-01600
(D. Del.), Horde v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-1642
(D. Del.), and Smith v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No.
1:20-cv-01649 (D. Del.); seven in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, captioned as Neal v. Parsley
Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-10355 (S.D.N.Y.), Reyna v. Parsley
Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-10453 (S.D.N.Y.), Poole v. Parsley
Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-10456 (S.D.N.Y.), Hutson v. Parsley
Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-105049 (S.D.N.Y.), Bushansky v.
Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-10635 (S.D.N.Y.), Gebhardt
v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-10793 (S.D.N.Y.) and
Prinzel v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-10877 (S.D.N.Y);
one in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, captioned as Ortiz v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No.
1:20-cv-06043 (E.D.N.Y.), and, together with the Wang Action, the
Horde Action, the Smith Action, the Neal Action, the Reyna Action,
the Poole Action, the Hutson Action, the Bushansky Action, the
Gebhardt Action and the Prinzel Action, the Federal Court Actions;
and one in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the
County of New York, captioned as Gupta v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et
al, No. 656659/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty).
The Stockholder Actions were filed by purported Parsley
stockholders and name Parsley and the members of the Parsley board
of directors as defendants. The Horde Action, Gupta Action and
Smith Action also name Pioneer, Merger Sub Inc., Merger Sub LLC and
Opco Merger Sub LLC as defendants.
The Federal Court Actions allege, among other things, that the
Preliminary Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus fails to disclose
certain allegedly material information in violation of Section
14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, as well as Rule 14a-9 under the Exchange Act.
The Gupta Action is a putative class action and asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty against the members of the Parsley board
of directors and claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty against Parsley, Pioneer and the merger subsidiaries. The
complaint alleges that consideration for the Mergers is inadequate,
that certain aspects of the sales process were deficient, that
there are conflicts of interest between Parsley insiders and
Parsley's public stockholders and that the Preliminary Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus omitted material information. The Stockholder
Actions seek injunctive relief enjoining the Mergers and damages
and costs, among other remedies.
Pioneer said, "It is possible that additional, similar complaints
may be filed or the complaints described above may be amended. If
this occurs, Pioneer and Parsley do not intend to announce the
filing of each additional, similar complaint or any amended
complaint unless it contains materially new or different
allegations. Although Pioneer and Parsley cannot predict the
outcome of or estimate the possible loss or range of loss from
these matters, Pioneer, Parsley and Parsley's defendant directors
believe that these complaints are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend them."
Pioneer and Parsley believe that these claims are without merit and
no supplemental disclosures are required under applicable laws;
however, in order to avoid the risk of the Stockholder Actions
delaying the Mergers and to minimize the expense of defending the
Stockholder Actions, and without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing, Pioneer and Parsley are voluntarily making certain
disclosures that supplement those contained in the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus.
A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/2LtMYN1.
Pioneer Natural Resources Company operates as an independent oil
and gas exploration and production company in the United States.
The Company is headquartered in Irving, Texas.
PRICESMART INC: Bid to Junk PERA Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
PriceSmart, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the class action suit headed by Public Employees
Retirement Association of New Mexico's (PERA's) is pending.
On May 22, 2019, a class action complaint was filed against
PriceSmart, Inc., as well as certain former and current officers in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.
On October 7, 2019, the Court granted PERA's Motion for Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff.
On January 3, 2020, PERA filed a consolidated class action
complaint, which alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against any
obligations or liability to the plaintiffs with respect to such
claims.
The Company believes the claims are without merit. During the third
quarter of fiscal 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Complaint and the Plaintiff filed
an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.
During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020, the Company filed a Reply
to the Opposition.
The Court has taken the matter under advisement.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
PriceSmart, Inc. owns and operates U.S.-style membership shopping
warehouse clubs in Central America, the Caribbean, and Colombia.
PriceSmart, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in San
Diego, California.
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Jan. 6 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of QuantumScape Corporation ("QuantumScape" or the
"Company") (NYSE: QS) from December 8, 2020 through December 31,
2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased QuantumScape securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit QuantumScape
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero
toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that : (i) the Company's
purported success related to its solid-state battery power, battery
life, and energy density were significantly overstated; (ii) the
Company is unlikely to be able to scale its technology to the
multi-layer cell necessary to power electric vehicles; and (iii) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On January 4, 2021, an article was published on Seeking Alpha. That
article pointed to a number of risks associated with QuantumScape's
solid state batteries. These risks make QuantumScape's batteries
"completely unacceptable for real world field electric vehicles."
The article specifically stated that QuantumScape's battery's power
meant it would "only last for 260 cycles or about 75,000 miles of
aggressive driving."
On this news, the price of QuantumScape's shares fell $34.49 or
approximately 40.84% to close at $49.96 per share on January 4,
2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 8, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased QuantumScape securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/quantumscapecorporation-qs-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-352/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
http://www.bernlieb.com[GN]
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of March 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Jan. 7 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
QuantumScape Corporation ("QuantumScape" or the "Company") (NYSE:
QS) securities between December 8, 2020 and December 31, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). QuantumScape investors have until
March 8, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their QuantumScape investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On January 4, 2021, an article was published on Seeking Alpha
pointing to several risks with QuantumScape's solid-state batteries
that make it "completely unacceptable for real world field electric
vehicles." Specifically, it stated that the battery's power means
it "will only last for 260 cycles or about 75,000 miles of
aggressive driving." As solid-state batteries are temperature
sensitive, "the power and cycle tests at 30 and 45 degrees above
would have been significantly worse if run even a few degrees
lower."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $34.49, or
approximately 40.84%, to close at $49.96 per share on January 4,
2021, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
(1) that the Company's purported success related to its solid-state
battery power, battery life, and energy density were significantly
overstated; (2) that the Company is unlikely to be able to scale
its technology to the multi-layer cell necessary to power electric
vehicles; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
If you purchased QuantumScape securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until March 8, 2021 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against QuantumScape
Corporation (NYSE:QS), if they purchased the Company's securities
between November 27, 2020 and December 31, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
What You May Do
If you purchased securities of QuantumScape and would like to
discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and
your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-qs/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by March 8, 2021.
About the Lawsuit
QuantumScape and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.
On January 4, 2021, before market open, an investigative report
issued by Seeking Alpha highlighted numerous measures of subpar
performance discovered in the Company's solid state battery
products that rendered them "completely unacceptable for real world
field electric vehicle performance," contrary to the Company's
prior statements touting its battery's performance data, as well as
other significant challenges "to be overcome before they can put
the first car in the field…that they have not solved yet and so
remain silent about."
On this news, the price of QuantumScape's shares plummeted to a
close of $49.96 per share on January 4, 2021, a one-day decline of
41% and a decline of more than 62% from the stock's Class Period
high of more than $131 per share on December 22, 2020..
The case is Gowda v. QuantumScape Corporation, 21-cv-00070.
About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
[GN]
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Jan. 7 disclosed that it filed
a class action seeking to represent purchasers of QuantumScape
Corporation (NYSE:QS) publicly traded securities between November
27, 2020 and December 31, 2020 (the "Class Period"). This action
was filed in the Northern District of California and is captioned
Gowda v. QuantumScape Corporation, No. 21-cv-00070.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased QuantumScape publicly traded securities
during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in
the QuantumScape class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the QuantumScape class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the QuantumScape class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the
QuantumScape class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as
lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the
QuantumScape class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later
than 60 days from January 7, 2021. If you wish to discuss the
QuantumScape class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Mary K. Blasy of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or
631-454-7719 or via e-mail at mblasy@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a
copy of the complaint as filed at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-quantumscape-class-action-lawsuit.html.
The QuantumScape class action lawsuit charges QuantumScape, certain
of its officers and directors, and its controlling shareholder with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. QuantumScape
develops and commercializes solid-state lithium-metal batteries for
electric vehicles.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose adverse information regarding the strength of
QuantumScape's business, operations and financial prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that the Company's
battery technology was not sufficient for electric vehicle
performance, as it would not be able to withstand the aggressive
automotive environment; the Company's battery technology likely
provided no meaningful improvement over existing battery
technology; and the successful commercialization of the Company's
battery technology was subject to much more significant risks and
uncertainties than defendants had disclosed. As a result of this
information being withheld from the market, QuantumScape securities
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
with the Company's Class A common stock reaching a high of more
than $131 per share, and the Company was able to complete a
combination with Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp. and to
commence an underwritten secondary public stock offering of its
publicly traded securities "at market price," registering for
resale more than 300 million shares of QuantumScape publicly traded
securities by insiders beginning on December 31, 2020, including
several QuantumScape senior executives and its controlling
shareholder.
Then on January 4, 2021, prior to the open of trading, Seeking
Alpha published a research report entitled "QuantumScape's Solid
State Batteries Have Significant Technical Hurdles To Overcome."
According to Seeking Alpha, defendants were concealing multiple
known risks with QuantumScape's solid state battery development and
design that rendered the batteries "completely unacceptable for
real world field electric vehicle performance." Specifically, the
power of QuantumScape batteries "will only last for 260 cycles or
about 75,000 miles of aggressive driving" and, because solid state
batteries are temperature sensitive, "power and cycle tests at 30
and 45 degrees above would have been significantly worse if run
even a few degrees lower." On this news, the price of
QuantumScape's Class A common stock fell to a close of $49.96 per
share on January 4, 2021, a one-day decline of 41% and a decline of
more than 62% from the stock's Class Period high of more than $131
per share on December 22, 2020.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Mary K. Blasy, 800-449-4900 or 631-454-7719
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Vincent Wong Reminds of March 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of QuantumScape
Corporation. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp.
(NYSE:QS)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/quantumscape-corporation-f-k-a-kensington-capital-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=12040&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021
Class Period: November 27, 2020 - December 31, 2020
Allegations against QS include that: (1) that the Company's
purported success related to its solid-state battery power, battery
life, and energy density were significantly overstated; (2) that
the Company is unlikely to be able to scale its technology to the
multi-layer cell necessary to power electric vehicles; and (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Dorman Hits Share Drop Over Failed Rewards Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------
James E. Dorman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Restaurant Brands International Inc., Jose
E. Cil, Matthew Dunnigan, Joshua Kobza and Alexandre Macedo,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-10788 (S.D. N.Y., December 21, 2020),
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Restaurant Brands, a Canadian corporation headquartered in Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, is a restaurant chain with over 27,000 Tim
Hortons, Burger King and Popeye's restaurants in more than 100
countries and U.S. territories as of December 31, 2019. Restaurant
Brands's common stock trades in the United States on the New York
Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "QSR."
On April 24, 2018, Restaurant Brands announced its "Winning
Together Plan" and "Tims Rewards" program for Tim Hortons customers
in Canada. On April 10, 2019, Restaurant Brands announced that it
was expanding the Tims Rewards program to include customers in the
United States. It completed two stock offerings collectively
resulting in proceeds of approximately $3 billion to insiders.
Weeks after the offerings were completed, investors learned that
Tim Hortons's hyped growth initiatives. The company also announced
disappointing financial results for the third quarter ended
September 30, 2019.
On this news, the price of Restaurant Brands common stock declined
$2.59 per share, or approximately 4%, from a close of $68.45 per
share on October 25, 2019, to close at $65.86 per share on October
28, 2019. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
Email: namjed@ktmc.com
rdegnan@ktmc.com
REV GROUP: Consolidated Suit Over 2017 IPO Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
REV Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action related to the company's January
2017 initial public offering (IPO).
A consolidated federal putative securities class action and a
consolidated state putative securities class action are pending
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.
These actions collectively purport to assert claims on behalf of
putative classes of purchasers of the Company's common stock in or
traceable to its January 2017 IPO, purchasers in its secondary
offering of common stock in October 2017, and purchasers from
October 10, 2017 through June 7, 2018.
The state action also names certain of the underwriters for the
Company's IPO or secondary offering as defendants.
The federal and state courts each consolidated multiple separate
actions pending before them, the first of which was filed on June
8, 2018.
The actions have alleged certain violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and, for the federal action, the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The consolidated state action is currently stayed in favor of
the consolidated federal action.
Collectively, the actions seek certification of the putative
classes asserted and compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.
The underwriter defendants have notified the Company of their
intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to the IPO
underwriting agreement regarding the claims asserted with respect
to the IPO, and the Company expects the underwriters to do the same
in regard to the claims asserted with respect to the October 2017
offering.
Two purported derivative actions, which have since been
consolidated, were also filed in federal court in Delaware in 2019
against the Company's directors (with the Company as a nominal
defendant), premised on allegations similar to those asserted in
the consolidated federal securities litigation.
The Company and the other defendants intend to defend these
lawsuits vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
REV Group, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes specialty
vehicles in the United States, Canada, Europe, Africa, the Middle
East, Latin America, the Caribbean, and internationally. It
operates through three segments: Fire & Emergency, Commercial, and
Recreation. REV Group, Inc. was formerly known as Allied Specialty
Vehicles, Inc. and changed its name to REV Group, Inc. in November
2015. The company is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
RITE AID: Consolidated Stafford Putative Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended November 28, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled,
Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp.
The Company is involved in a putative consumer class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California captioned Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp.
A separate lawsuit, Robert Josten v. Rite Aid Corp., was
consolidated with this lawsuit in November 2019.
The lawsuit contains allegations that (i) the Company was obligated
to charge the plaintiffs' insurance companies a "usual and
customary" price for their prescription drugs; and (ii) the Company
failed to do so because the prices it reported were not equal to or
adjusted to account for the prices that Rite Aid offers to
uninsured and underinsured customers through its Rx Savings
Program.
Rite Aid said, "At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is
not able to either predict the outcome or estimate a potential
range of loss and is defending itself against these claims."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Rite Aid Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates a chain of
retail drugstores in the United States. The company operates
through two segments, Retail Pharmacy and Pharmacy Services. Rite
Aid Corporation was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania.
SAKS INC: All Appeal Proceedings in Shareholder Litigation Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York grants the
Defendants-Appellants' motion to stay all further appeal
proceedings in the matter titled IN RE: SAKS INC. SHAREHOLDER
LITIGATION, Index No. 652724/13, Case No. 2020-02542, Motion No.
2020-03915 (N.Y. App. Div.).
The appeal has been taken to the Court from an order of the Supreme
Court, New York County, entered on March 26, 2020.
The Defendants-Appellants, Fabiola Arredondo, Robert B. Carter,
Michael S. Gross, Donald E. Hess, Marguerite W. Kondracke, Jerry W.
Levin, Nora McAniff, Stephen I. Sadove, and Jack L. Stahl moved to
stay all further proceedings in the appeal pending consideration
and approval of a certain class action settlement by the Supreme
Court, New York County,
The Appellate Court ruled that the Motion is granted to the extent
that the time in which to perfect the appeal is extended to the
September 2021 Term of the Court, with leave to seek further
extensions if necessary.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 7, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4gxo7qn from Leagle.com.
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Liebhard Discloses Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, is investigating potential securities fraud claims on behalf
of shareholders of Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. ("Sarepta" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: SRPT) resulting from allegations that Sarepta
might have issued misleading information to the investing public.
If you purchased Sarepta securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit SRPT Shareholder
Investigation or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
On January 7, 2021, after market hours, Sarepta announced its
"top-line results for Part 1 of Study 102 evaluating SRP-9001, its
investigational gene therapy for the treatment of Duchenne muscular
dystrophy." According to Sarepta, "the study did not achieve
statistical significance on the primary functional endpoint of
improvement [. . .] compared to placebo at 48 weeks
post-treatment[.]"
On this news, Sarepta's shares are trading at approximately $82.00
per share, down over 50%, on January 8, 2021.
If you purchased Sarepta securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/sareptatherapeuticsinc-srpt-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-354/apply/
Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
SHUTTERFLY INC: Class Certification Briefing Extension Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN TAYLOR, an
individual on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, v. SHUTTERFLY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 5:18-cv-00266-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Parties asks
the Court for an order to extend schedule re: class certification
briefing.
The Parties have met and conferred and agreed that good cause
exists to extend the deadlines related to Plaintiff's Class
Certification Motion previously set by the Court for a period of
approximately five months to allow the Parties time to complete
their settlement discussions, and if the Plaintiff's claims cannot
be resolved, complete the outstanding discovery.
The Parties stipulate and agree as follows subject to the Court's
approval:
EVENT CURRENT DATE NEW PROPOSED DATE
OR DEADLINE OR DEADLINE
Last Day to File Jan. 15, 2021 June 11, 2021
Class Certification
Motion
Last Day to Oppose Mar. 19, 2021 Aug. 20, 2021
Class Certification
Motion
Last Day to File Apr. 16, 2021 Sept. 17, 2021
Reply in support of
Class Certification
Motion
Hearing on Class Jun. 24, 2021 Nov. 18, 2021
Certification Motion
On September 20, 2020, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation
to extend the schedule for class certification briefing for a
period of approximately three months due to there being
insufficient time to complete ESI discovery and the Defendant's
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition following the resolution of the Parties'
disputes over the scope of discovery.
Shutterfly is an American photography, photography products, and
image sharing company, headquartered in Redwood City, California.
A copy of the joint stipulation and [proposed] order extending
schedule re class certification briefing dated Jan. 11, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2N5VWk7 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 336-6545
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
Attorneys for the Defendant Shutterfly, Inc., are:
Brian D. Berry, Esq.
Andrew M. Massara, Esq.
Sean Kramer, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.
SM ENERGY: Chieftain Royalty Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHIEFTAIN ROYALTY COMPANY,
v. SM ENERGY COMPANY (including Predecessors, successors and
affiliates), Case No. 5:18-cv-01225-J (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes,
consisting of:
"all non-excluded persons or entities who are or were
royalty owners in Defendant's 126 Coal County Gathering
System wells where Defendant is or was the operator;"
-- The Settlement Class claims relate only to payment for
gas and its constituents (residue gas, natural gas
liquids, and drip gas) produced from the wells for
production months October 2001 through May 2015;
-- The Settlement Class does not include overriding
royalty owners or other owners who derive their
interest through the oil and gas lessee;
-- The persons or entities excluded from the Settlement
Class are: (1) agencies, departments, or
instrumentalities of the United States of America or
the State of Oklahoma; (2) Commissioners of the Land
Office of the State of Oklahoma (CLO); (3) publicly
traded oil and gas exploration companies and their
affiliates; (4) persons or entities (and their
affiliates) who are the Oklahoma Corporation Commission
(OCC) designated operator of more than fifty (50)
Oklahoma wells in the month when this Class definition
was originally filed; (5) persons or entities that the
Plaintiff's counsel may be prohibited from representing
under Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional
Conduct; and (6) officers of the court
2. preliminarily approving the settlement against the
Defendant SM Energy;
-- The Settlement provides for a cash payment of
$10,000,000 (the Gross Settlement Fund) to
compensate the Settlement Class for past damages.
3. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative of the
Settlement Class;
4. appointing Nix Patterson, LLP and Barnes & Lewis, LLP as
Class Counsel for the Settlement Class;
5. approving the form and manner of providing notice of the
Settlement to the Settlement Class;
6. appointing JND Legal Administration as Settlement
Administrator;
7. appointing Signature Bank as Escrow Agent; and
8. setting a hearing date for approval of the Settlement and
application for an award of Attorneys' Fees, Litigation
Expenses, and Case Contribution Award to the Plaintiff.
In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged the Defendant underpaid
royalty due to the Plaintiff and Class Members on production of gas
and its constituents from the Class Wells. Based on these
allegations, the Plaintiff brought claims for breach of contract,
tortious breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary
or quasi-fiduciary duty, fraud and deceit, conversion, conspiracy,
accounting, and injunctive relief, and seeks actual and punitive
damages.
SM Energy is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration. It is
organized in Delaware and headquartered in Denver, Colorado. The
company was known as St. Mary Land & Exploration Company until
2010. The company's assets are in the Eagle Ford Group and the
Permian Basin.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify settlement class dated
Jan. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
http://bit.ly/3qkeXxrat no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
Lisa P. Baldwin, Esq.
Trey N. Duck, III
Susan Whatley, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON, LLP
3600 N. Capital of TX Hwy.
Bldg. B, Suite 350
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 328-5333
Facsimile: (512) 328-5335
E-mail: bbeckworth@nixlaw.com
jangelovich@nixlaw.com
lbaldwin@nixlaw.com
tduck@nixlaw.com
swhatley@nixlaw.com
- and -
Robert N. Barnes, Esq.
Patranell B. Lewis, Esq
Emily Nash Kitch, Esq
BARNES & LEWIS LLP
208 NW 60th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Telephone: (405) 843-0363
Facsimile: (405) 832-1007
E-mail: rbarnes@barneslewis.com
plewis@barneslewis.com
ekitch@barneslewis.com
SMG HOLDINGS: McCarthy Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN MCCARTY, an
individual, FABIAN GUERRERO, an individual, and DAVID BABCOCK, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. SMG HOLDINGS I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; SMG HOLDINGS II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; SMG, a general partnership; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-06232-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court on March 26, 2021 to enter an order:
1. certifying that this action is maintainable as a class
action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules
23(a) and 23(b)(3);
2. certifying the following Classes:
a. San Francisco Class
"all non-exempt employees of Defendant SMG in San
Francisco, California during the period of October 27,
2013 through the date of the order granting class
certification;
b. Stockton Class
"all non-exempt employees of Defendant SMG in Stockton,
California during Class Period.
3. certifying the following Subclasses:
a. San Francisco Class
-- Rounding Subclass:
"all non-exempt employees of Defendant SMG in San
Francisco who were not paid for all time they were
clocked in during the Class Period";
-- Meal Period Subclass:
"all non-exempt employees of Defendant SMG in San
Francisco who worked one or more shifts over five
hours during the Class Period;"
-- Rest Break Subclass:
all non-exempt employees of Defendant SMG in San
Francisco who worked one or more shifts over 3.5
hours during the Class Period;"
-- Reimbursement Subclass:
"all non-exempt employees of Defendant SMG in San
Francisco who were not reimbursed by Defendants for
the cost of the use of their personal cell phones
for SMG's business purposes incurred during the
Class Period";
-- Wage Statement Subclass:
"all non-exempt employees of Defendant SMG in San
Francisco who received a wage statement during the
Class Period;"
-- Waiting Time Subclass:
"all non-exempt employees of Defendant SMG in San
Francisco who separated from their employment during
the Class Period;"
b. Stockton Class
-- Rounding Subclass:
"all non-exempt employees of Defendant SMG in
Stockton who were not paid for all time they were
clocked in during the Class Period;"
-- Meal Period Subclass:
"all non-exempt employees of Defendant SMG in
Stockton who worked one or more shifts over five
hours during the Class Period;"
-- Rest Break Subclass:
"all non-exempt employees of Defendant SMG in
Stockton who worked one or more shifts over 3.5
hours during the Class Period;"
-- Reimbursement Subclass:
"all non-exempt employees of Defendant SMG in
Stockton who were not reimbursed by Defendants for
the cost of the use of their personal cell phones
for SMG's business purposes incurred during the
Class Period;"
-- Wage Statement Subclass:
"all non-exempt employees of Defendant SMG in
Stockton who received a wage statement during the
Class Period;"
-- Waiting Time Subclass:
all non-exempt employees of Defendant SMG in
Stockton who separated from their employment during
the Class Period;"
4. appointing themselves as representatives for the proposed
Classes; and
5. appointing Matern Law Group, PC, Matthew J. Matern, Mikael
H. Stahle, and Irina A. Kirnosova as Class Counsel for the
proposed Classes.
In the complaint, the Plaintiffs seek certification of the classes
and subclasses for the following claims alleged in the operative
complaint: (a) Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; (b)
Failure to Provide Required Rest Breaks; (c) Failure to Pay
Overtime Wages; (d) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (e) Failure to
Pay All Wages Due to Quitting Employees; (f) Failure to Furnish
Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (g) Failure to Indemnify
Employees for Necessary Business Expenditures Incurred in Discharge
of Duties; and (h) Violation of the Unfair Competition Law.
Guerrero worked for SMG at the Moscone Center as a First Cook
during the class period. McCarty worked as a Merchandise
Representative and Babcock as a server and bartender at SMG's
Stockton venues during the class period. During the class period,
SMG employed at least 800 employees in Stockton and at least 950
employees in San Francisco.
SMG is an event management company. During the class period, SMG
operated 5 locations in Stockton, California (the Stockton Arena,
the Stockton Ballpark, the Oak Park Ice Arena, the Bob Hope
Theater, and the Downtown Stockton Marina) and the Moscone Center
in San Francisco, California.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 11,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3bzOkABat
no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
Irina A. Kirnosova, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
SOLARWINDS CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Discloses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading minority and certified woman-owned
national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims
against SolarWinds Corporation ("SolarWinds" or the "Company")
(NYSE: SWI).
If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in SolarWinds
stock or options and would like to discuss your legal rights, click
here: www.faruqilaw.com/SWI or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner James
Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310)
On December 14, 2020, SolarWinds disclosed in a Form 8-K that it
had become "aware of a cyberattack that inserted a vulnerability
within its Orion monitoring products which, if present and
activated, could potentially allow an attacker to compromise the
server on which the Orion products run." Further, SolarWinds
provided that it believed the attack was "the result of a highly
sophisticated, targeted and manual supply chain attack by an
outside nation state."
On this news, SolarWinds's stock price fell $3.93 per share, or
16.69%, to close at $19.62 per share.
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner.
To view the source version of this press release, please visit
https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/71682 [GN]
SOLARWINDS CORP: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.
SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE:SWI)
Investors Affected: March 1, 2020 - December 14, 2020
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
SolarWinds Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) since mid-2020, SolarWinds Orion monitoring
products had a vulnerability that allowed hackers to compromise the
server upon which the products ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server
had an easily accessible password of ‘solarwinds123'; (3)
consequently, SolarWinds' customers, including, among others, the
Federal Government, Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be
vulnerable to hacks; (4) as a result, the Company would suffer
significant reputational harm; and (5) as a result, Defendants'
statements about SolarWinds's business, operations and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/solarwinds-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=11981&from=1
Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE:QSR)
Investors Affected: April 29, 2019 - October 28, 2019
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Restaurant Brands International Inc. The filed complaint alleges
that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Winning Together
Plan was failing to generate substantial, sustainable improvement
within the Tim Hortons brand; (2) the Tims Rewards loyalty program
was not generating sustainable revenue growth as increased customer
traffic was not offsetting promotional discounting; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/restaurant-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11981&from=1
CD Projekt S.A. (OTC PINK:OTGLY)
Investors Affected: January 16, 2020 - December 17, 2020
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
CD Projekt SA. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: Throughout the class period, defendants were
materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and
failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the
Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to
Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually unplayable on the
current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems due to an enormous
number of bugs; (2) as a result, Sony would remove Cyberpunk 2077
from the Playstation store, and Sony, Microsoft and the Company
would be forced to offer full refunds for the game; (3)
consequently, the Company would suffer reputational and pecuniary
harm; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/cd-projekt-s-a-loss-submission-form/?id=11981&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
SOLARWINDS CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 5 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of SolarWinds Corporation ("SolarWinds") (NYSE: SWI)
between March 1, 2020 and December 14, 2020. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/solarwinds-corporation-information-request-form?prid=12042&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) since mid-2020, SolarWinds Orion monitoring
products had a vulnerability that allowed hackers to compromise the
server upon which the products ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server
had an easily accessible password of 'solarwinds123'; (3)
consequently, SolarWinds' customers, including, among others, the
Federal Government, Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be
vulnerable to hacks; (4) as a result, the Company would suffer
significant reputational harm; and (5) as a result, Defendants'
statements about SolarWinds's business, operations and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.
If you suffered a loss in SolarWinds you have until March 5, 2021
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
SOLARWINDS CORP: Proskauer Rose Discusses Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke G. Gottlieb, Esq., and Joseph S. Hartunian, Esq., of
Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
report that the massive data breach of the United States Commerce
and Treasury Departments that has roiled the federal government has
resulted in federal securities litigation. On January 4, 2021,
Plaintiff-Shareholder Timothy Bremer filed a class action complaint
against SolarWinds and SolarWinds' corporate executives in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
SolarWinds provides information technology and infrastructure
management software products to entities around the globe,
including to various U.S. government vendors in the executive
branch, military, and intelligence services. According to the
complaint, Russian hackers gained access to government email
traffic by deceptively interfering with software updates released
by SolarWinds. The complaint alleges that SolarWinds violated
federal securities law by making false and/or misleading statements
and failing to disclose material facts regarding SolarWinds'
cybersecurity practices and protocols, which artificially inflated
the market price of SolarWinds' shares. When news of the hack
became public, the value of Solarwinds' securities dropped, thereby
producing an economic loss for investors within the class period of
February 24, 2020 through December 15, 2020. The complaint asserts
claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 against SolarWinds
and its corporate executives, and for violations of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against the corporate executives.
To establish securities fraud under Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff must
show (1) a material misrepresentation or omission (2) made with
scienter (3) in connection with the purchase or sale of a security;
(4) reliance on the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic
loss; and (6) loss causation. Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo.
According to the complaint, SolarWinds failed to disclose that it
had a security vulnerability -- an easily accessible password --
which allowed hackers to compromise the server and made its
customers vulnerable to cyberattacks. Notwithstanding this
knowledge, the complaint alleges that SolarWinds' 2019 Form 10-K
and Form 10-Qs for the first three quarters of 2020 were materially
false and misleading because they stated, among other things, that
"[t]he risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly
through cyberattacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer
hacks, foreign governments, and cyber terrorists, has generally
increased the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted
attacks, and intrusions from around the world have increased."
Plaintiff alleges that these disclosures were insufficient because
they failed to discuss the significant cybersecurity risk to the
company and its clients caused by SolarWinds' vulnerabilities.
The complaint alleges that the truth came to light beginning with a
December 13, 2020 Reuters report that hackers alleged to be working
for the Russian government gained access to the U.S. Treasury and
Commerce departments' emails by deceptively interfering with
SolarWinds' product updates. The next day, SolarWinds filed a Form
8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing that it
had been subject to the cyberattack. SolarWinds' shares fell 17% on
this news. The next day, Reuters published another article stating
that in 2019, a security researcher notified SolarWinds that anyone
could access SolarWinds' update server by using the password
"solarwinds123." The same day, SolarWinds' shares fell 8%.
Lead counsel has not yet been designated. After a lead plaintiff is
appointed, we can expect an amended complaint to be filed with
additional allegations. It also remains to be seen whether the
government will seek any damages against SolarWinds for its role in
the massive cyberattack. Follow along here for additional updates.
[GN]
STATE FARM: Manrique Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company. The case is styled as Jose Manrique,
suing individually on his own behalf and representatively on behalf
of a class of plaintiffs similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 7:21-cv-00224-KMK (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 11, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company --
https://www.statefarm.com/ -- operates as an insurance company. The
Company offers vehicle, auto, accident, homeowners, condo owners,
renters, life and annuities, fire and casualty, health, disability,
flood, business, and boat insurance products and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Peter Fitzpatrick, Esq.
MARSCHHAUSEN & FITZPATRICK, P.C.
600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 877-7700
Fax: (516) 747-6439
Email: kevin@vlmc-law.com
SUPERCUTS INC: Shipman Files TCPA Suit in Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Supercuts, Inc. The
case is styled as Larry Shipman, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Supercuts, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, a Utah limited liability company, Case No.
0:21-cv-00080-DWF-TNL (D. Minn., Jan. 11, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Supercuts -- https://www.supercuts.com/ -- is a hair salon
franchise with more than 2,400 locations across the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan D. Peterson, Esq.
PETERSON LEGAL, PLLC
5201 Eden Avenue, Suite 300
Edina, MN 55436
Phone: (612) 367-6568
Email: ryan@peterson.legal
TC DEVA GROUP: Denied Hamlin Overtime Pay, Meal Breaks, Paystubs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Hamlin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. TC Deva Group LLC and Does 1 through 10,
Defendants, Case No. 20-at-01279, (E.D. Cal., December 22, 2020),
seeks redress for failure to pay overtime, provide meal periods
and/or rest periods and accurate wage statements in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 201- 203, the Fair Labor Standards
Act and California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No.
9-2001.
Defendants operate as "Thai Canteen" and "THAI - The House of
Authentic Ingredients," Thai cuisine restaurants in Sacramento,
California. Shannon worked as a server in Thai Canteen. She seeks
payment for denied rest breaks or lunch breaks, as well as unpaid
overtime rate when working more than 8 hours per day or 40 hours
per week. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Nunes, Esq.
NUNES WORKER RIGHTS LAW, APC
15260 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (530) 848-1515
Fax: (424) 252-4301
Email: tony@nunesworkerrightslaw.com
TRICIDA INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Tricida, Inc. ("Tricida" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: TCDA) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and docketed under 21-cv-00076, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Tricida securities between
September 4, 2019 and October 28, 2020, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Tricida securities during
the Class Period, you have until March 8, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Tricida is a pharmaceutical company that focuses on the development
and commercialization of its drug candidate, veverimer (TRC101), a
non-absorbed, orally-administered polymer designed as a potential
treatment for metabolic acidosis in patients with chronic kidney
disease ("CKD"). Tricida has completed a Phase 3, double-blind,
placebo-controlled trial of veverimer in patients with CKD and
metabolic acidosis.
On September 4, 2019, Tricida announced that it had submitted a New
Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") under the Accelerated Approval Program for approval of
veverimer for the treatment of metabolic acidosis in patients with
CKD.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) Tricida's NDA for veverimer was materially
deficient; (ii) accordingly, it was foreseeably likely that the FDA
would not accept the NDA for veverimer; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
On July 15, 2020, Tricida issued a press release announcing that,
on July 14, 2020, the Company received a notification from the FDA,
stating that as part of the FDA's ongoing review of the Company's
NDA for veverimer, "the FDA has identified deficiencies that
preclude discussion of labeling and postmarketing
requirements/commitments at this time." Tricida stated that "[t]he
notification does not specify the deficiencies identified by the
FDA."
On this news, Tricida's stock price fell $10.56 per share, or
40.31%, to close at $15.64 per share on July 16, 2020.
Then, on October 29, 2020, Tricida announced an update on its
End-of-Review Type A meeting with the FDA regarding the veverimer
NDA, advising investors that the Company "now believes the FDA will
also require evidence of veverimer's effect on CKD progression from
a near-term interim analysis of the VALOR-CKD trial for approval
under the Accelerated Approval Program and that the FDA is unlikely
to rely solely on serum bicarbonate data for determination of
efficacy." Concurrently, Tricida disclosed that it "is
significantly reducing its headcount from 152 to 59 people and will
discuss its commitments with vendors and contract service providers
to potentially provide additional financial flexibility."
On this news, Tricida's stock price fell $3.90 per share, or
47.16%, to close at $4.37 per share on October 29, 2020.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
TRICIDA INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Tricida, Inc. If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.
Tricida, Inc. (NASDAQ:TCDA)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/tricida-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12040&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021
Class Period: September 4, 2019 - October 28, 2020
Allegations against TCDA include that: (i) Tricida's NDA for
veverimer was materially deficient; (ii) accordingly, it was
foreseeably likely that the FDA would not accept the NDA for
veverimer; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
TRITERRAS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Triterras, Inc. (NASDAQ:
TRIT), Restaurant Brands International (NYSE: QSR), and CD Projekt
S.A. (Other OTC: OTGLY, OTGLF). Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about each case can be found at the link
provided.
Triterras, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRIT)
Class Period: August 20, 2020 to December 16, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2021
Triterras is a fintech company focused on trade and trade finance.
It operates Kratos, a commodity trading and trade finance platform
that connects commodity traders to trade and source capital from
lenders directly online. Triterras formed via merger of Netfin and
Triterras Fintech Pte. Ltd., which closed on November 11, 2020.
Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd. ("Rhodium") is a commodity trading
business controlled by Srinivas Koneru, the Company's Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO"). Rhodium enabled the launch of the Kratos
platform, and substantially all of the Company's users were
referred to it by Rhodium.
On December 17, 2020, Triterras stated that Rhodium was seeking a
moratorium to shield itself from creditor actions while it planned
a restructuring of its debts and continue its business as a going
concern.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.11, or 31%, to
close at $9.09 per share on December 17, 2020. The Company's
warrant price fell $1.09, or 35%, to close at $2.01 per warrant on
December 17, 2020.
The complaint, filed on December 21, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the
extent to which Company's revenue growth relied on Triterras'
relationship with Rhodium to refer users to the Kratos platform;
(2) that Rhodium faced significant financial liabilities that
jeopardized its ability to continue as a going concern; (3) that,
as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the
Company's Kratos platform; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Triterras class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/TRIT
Restaurant Brands International, Inc. (NYSE: QSR)
Class Period: April 29, 2019 to October 28, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2021
On April 24, 2018, Restaurant Brands announced a new strategy
designed to improve performance within the Company's Tim Hortons
brand. Specifically, the "Winning Together Plan" would focus on
three key pillars: restaurant experience; product excellence; and
brand communications.
On March 20, 2019, Restaurant Brands announced "Tims Rewards" -- a
new loyalty program for Tim Hortons customers in Canada. Under the
Tims Rewards program, customers would be eligible for a free hot
brewed coffee, hot tea, or baked good after every seventh paid
visit to a participating Tim Hortons restaurant. On April 10, 2019,
Restaurant Brands announced that it was expanding the Tims Rewards
program to include customers in the United States.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly touted the
implementation and execution of the Company's Winning Together Plan
and Tims Rewards loyalty program. On the heels of the Company
touting the benefits of these initiatives, the Company completed
two stock offerings on or about August 12, 2019, and September 5,
2019, collectively resulting in proceeds of approximately $3
billion to insiders.
On October 28, 2019, mere weeks after the offerings were completed,
investors learned the truth about Tim Hortons's hyped growth
initiatives when the Company announced disappointing financial
results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2019.
Specifically, Defendants acknowledged that "results at Tim Hortons
were not where we want them to be with global comparable sales
dipping into negative territory" and admitted that "discounting
[associated with Tims Rewards] is slightly more than offsetting the
traffic levels, which is causing a little bit of softness in
sales."
On this news, the price of Restaurant Brands common stock declined
$2.59 per share, or approximately 4%, from a close of $68.45 per
share on October 25, 2019, to close at $65.86 per share on October
28, 2019.
The complaint, filed on December 21, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts,
about the Company's business and operations. Specifically,
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company's Winning Together Plan was failing to generate
substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand;
(2) the Tims Rewards loyalty program was not generating sustainable
revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting
promotional discounting; and (3) as a result, defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Restaurant Brands class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/QSR
CD Projekt S.A. (Other OTC: OTGLY, OTGLF)
Class Period: January 16, 2020 to December 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 22, 2021
For several years, the Company had been devoting substantially all
its resources to the development of Cyberpunk 2077, which the
Company described as a "open world, narrative-driven role-playing
game."
The Company launched Cyberpunk 2077 on December 10, 2020. Consumers
soon discovered that the Current-Generation Console versions of
Cyberpunk 2077 were error-laden and difficult to play. IGN
published a scathing review, stating that the Console versions
"fail[] to hit even the lowest bar of technical quality one should
expect even when playing on lower-end hardware. [Cyberpunk 2077]
performs so poorly that it makes combat, driving, and what is
otherwise a master craft of storytelling legitimately difficult to
look at."
Following the release, the Company's ADRs fell from its close of
$27.68 on December 9, 2020 to close at $20.75 on December 14, 2020,
a drop of $6.93 or 25% over 3 trading days, damaging investors.
Over that same period, CD Projekt's common share (OTGLF) price fell
$21.65 per share, or 20.1%, to close at $86.00 on December 14,
2020.
Then, on December 18, 2020, Sony issued a statement via the
Playstation website that it would "offer a full refund for all
gamers who have purchased Cyberpunk 2077 via PlayStation Store" and
"be removing Cyberpunk 2077 from PlayStation Store until further
notice." Microsoft also announced that it would offer refunds for
the game. That same day, the Company stated that Sony's decision to
"temporarily suspend" sales of the game came after a discussion
with the Company.
On this news, CD Projekt's ADR (OTGLY) price fell $3.44 per share,
or 15.8%, to close at $18.50 per ADR on December 18, 2020, damaging
investors. CD Projekt's common share (OTGLF) price fell $9.20 per
share, or 10.45%, to close at $78.80 on December 18, 2020.
The complaint, filed on December 24, 2020, alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually
unplayable on the current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems
due to an enormous number of bugs; (2) as a result, Sony would
remove Cyberpunk 2077 from the Playstation store, and Sony,
Microsoft and CD Projekt would be forced to offer full refunds for
the game; (3) consequently, CD Projekt would suffer reputational
and pecuniary harm; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the CD Projekt class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CDProjekt
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do
not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
TRITERRAS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of February 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Triterras, Inc.
("Triterras" or the "Company") f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp.
("Netfin") (NASDAQ: TRIT, TRITW) and certain of its officers, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired
Triterras securities between August 20, 2020 and December 16, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to
join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/trit.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the extent to which Company's revenue growth relied on
Triterras' relationship with Rhodium to refer users to the Kratos
platform; (2) that Rhodium faced significant financial liabilities
that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going concern; (3)
that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the
Company's Kratos platform; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/trit or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Triterras you have until February 19, 2021 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
Contacts:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
TRITERRAS INC: Ferraiori Slams Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------
Raffaele Ferraiori, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Triterras, Inc. (f/k/a Netfin
Acquisition Corp.), Srinivas Koneru and Marat Rosenberg,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-10795 (S.D. N.Y., December 21, 2020),
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Triterras is a fintech company focused on trade and trade finance.
It operates "Kratos," a commodity trading and trade finance
platform that connects commodity traders to trade and source
capital from lenders directly online. Triterras was formed via
merger of Netfin and Triterras Fintech Pte. Ltd. which closed on
November 11, 2020. Netfin was a special purpose acquisition company
incorporated for the purpose of entering into a merger, share
exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase, recapitalization,
reorganization or other similar business combination with one or
more businesses or entities.
Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd. is a commodity trading business
headquartered in Singapore. Rhodium enabled the launch of the
Kratos platform. The two entities have entered into an origination
agreement to incentivize Rhodium to continue to refer its commodity
trading customers to Kratos, in exchange for fixed payments to
Rhodium at the time a referred customer meets total transaction
volume requirements for a given period.
On December 17, 2020, Triterras stated that Rhodium was seeking a
moratorium to shield itself from creditor actions while it planned
a restructuring of its debts and continue its business as a going
concern. On this news, the Triterras' share price fell $4.11, or
31%, to close at $9.09 per share on December 17, 2020, on unusually
heavy trading volume. Triterras' warrant price fell $1.09, or 35%,
to close at $2.01 per warrant on December 17, 2020, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
Defendants allegedly failed to disclose to investors the extent to
which the company's revenue growth relied on Triterras'
relationship with Rhodium to refer users to the Kratos platform;
that Rhodium faced significant financial liabilities that
jeopardized its ability to continue as a going concern; and that
Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the company's Kratos
platform.
Ferraiori purchased Triterras securities and suffered damages as a
result of the federal securities law violations, says the
complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: info@glancylaw.com
- and -
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
TRITERRAS INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of February 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Triterras, Inc. If
you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.
Triterras, Inc., f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:TRIT)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/triterras-inc-f-k-a-netfin-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=12040&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2021
Class Period: August 20, 2020 - December 16, 2020
Allegations against TRIT include that: (1) the extent to which
Company's revenue growth relied on Triterras' relationship with
Rhodium to refer users to the Kratos platform; (2) that Rhodium
faced significant financial liabilities that jeopardized its
ability to continue as a going concern; (3) that, as a result,
Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the Company's Kratos
platform; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
TRUFFA PIZZERIA: Conditional Certification of FLSA Claim Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDY RUIZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRUFFA
PIZZERIA & WINE ROOM CORP. d/b/a COCINA CHENTE MEXICAN CUISINE, and
MOISES LOPEZ SR., ROMA LOPEZ and JUAN ROSARIO, individually, Case
No. 1:20-cv-08645-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. granting conditional certification of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) claim as a representative collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);
2. approving Court-facilitated notice of this FLSA action to
covered employees; including a consent form (or opt-in
form) as authorized by the FLSA;
3. approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
consent form;
4. directing the Defendants to produce the names, last known
mailing address, alternate address, telephone numbers,
Social Security numbers and dates of employment of all
covered employees; and
5. posting of the Notice, along with consent forms, in
conspicuous locations at Cocina Chente.
Cocina Chente serves artisan Mexican food, handcrafted cocktails
and Mezcal.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 11,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38LM3k5
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs, in an article for
Lexology, reports that interesting, there is nothing new in the
analysis of Hirsch v. Ushealth Advisors, Civil Action No.
4:18-cv-00245-P, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228936 (N,D. Tx. December 7,
2020) -- indeed its primary analysis comes straight from Gene &
Gene -- a case from 2008! Back then TCPA certification was pretty
simple to analyze -- if the numbers came from multiple sources then
certification was not possible because consent would need to be
evaluated for each source separately. And where calls stemmed from
individual interactions between agents and consumers -- like where
consumers filled out online forms or provided information to an
agent over the phone -- then each and every individual interaction
would need to be reviewed for consent, making certification quite
impossible. On the other hand when numbers came from a single
source -- like a lead list -- it would be possible to certify TCPA
cases, at least as long as consent could be monolithically
established for the list (one way or the other.) Pretty simple
stuff.
But as time has worn on here in TCPAWorld many courts have lost
their way and began certifying multi-source cases in special
settings (i.e. skip trace classes or wrong number classes) and some
even went so far as to certify multi-source cases outright,
reasoning that the Defendant has some special burden to
affirmatively prove consent by class members at the certification
stage. Ridiculous.
In Hirsch the court reached back to the Gene & Gene era and
simplified matters for TCPAWorld, once again. In a TCPA DNC case --
the Court reasoned -- there are three principle issues that will
drive the outcome of the litigation: i) whether calls were made
without consent; ii) whether the calls are made to residential
numbers; and iii) whether Defendant is liable for the calls on
vicarious liability theory. Either Plaintiff has common evidence on
all three of those issues -- in which case the case might be
certified -- or he/she does not -- in which the case the case may
not be certified.
Elegant. Straightforward. Correct.
In Hirsch the Plaintiff failed to make the required showing.
As to consent, the phone calls at issue arose from various and
different interactions between consumers and third-parties. In
short, the phone numbers originated from multiple sources and, as a
result "consent could not be proven by general evidence -- each
number had its own story." The Hirsch court found that Defendants
and Defendants' Agents used various methods to obtain consent,
"including personal relationships, existing business relationships,
explicit requests, and multiple lead-generation vendors." These
multiple sources meant many customers afforded consent and -- even
if some did not -- determining who did, and who did not, was a case
by case review. This is true even though some of the numbers were
obtained via lead generation:
from leads Defendants bought from lead-generation vendors, there is
evidence that at least some of those were screened or verified for
TCPA.
As to identifying residential numbers -- remember only calls to
residential cell phone numbers are actionable in TCPA DNC class
actions -- plaintiff's plan to review potential class members
against a database of business numbers was "unreliable." No single
source of information definitively answers this question for each
phone number. Even if a database suggests that a number is (or is
not) a business number, the Defendant is entitled to offer proof to
the contrary and the Court need not merely accept any database's
determination. Instead, "[e]ach must be tested individually."
The Court finds the needed number by number review to be a
"Herculean task at best."
As to vicarious liability, the mere fact that Defendant's agents
signed common agreements was not dispositive. The evidence showed
that each Agent engages with the Defendant to different degrees,
suggesting different levels of "control" from an agency
perspective. The Court found the following facts useful to the
analysis: "Some Agents work from an office with many Agents, and
other Agents work from their homes. Each Regional Manager may take
different levels of oversight and control. And then there are the
lead-generation vendors. They may work directly with Defendants,
but also with Regional Managers and individual Agents. Each
relationship, and Defendants' control over each relationship, could
be different."
Finally -- and importantly -- the Hirsch court comes very close to
holding that repeat-players cannot serve as TCPA class action
representatives. This is especially true where the plaintiff
invites return phone calls.
Backing up, it has become common practice for repeat or serial TCPA
to invite calls from marketers to pierce through the first layer of
marketing call to determine who the call was made "on behalf of."
That is to say, Plaintiffs feign interest in a product during a
call from a marketer in order to get connected with the ultimate
seller. The seller then makes an outbound call -- seemingly with
consent to an interested purchaser -- only to get sued for making
the original call without consent.
Here the Hirsch analysis is a bit less elegant. The proper analysis
in this situation is: i) whether the third-party making the initial
call was an "agent" of the Defendant (almost never the case); and
ii) whether the seller had an inquiry EBR for its own subsequent
call (almost always the case). In Hirsch, however, the Court
determined there would not have been a lawsuit but for Plaintiff's
feigned interest in the product -- so he was atypical of the class.
The Court noted the Defendant's counterclaim against Plaintiff for
fraud (critical and good move by Defendant) as highlighting
individualized and atypical issues. " In this case's trial, Hirsch
will play as much defense as offense. "This involves more than just
defending the counterclaims -- although that is a consideration.
Hirsch created the case's factual foundation by scheduling the
calls. But for his actions, there would not be a case."
The court also affords this gem that comes very close to barring
repeat plaintiff's from representing classes:
his records and behavior make his status as a professional
plaintiff unavoidable. For some potential jurors, this may be
decisive.
How sweet is that?
Hirsch is a great little decision and every TCPA class action
defense lawyer ought to have this one handy. Note in particular the
huge hurdle that identifying residential numbers pose in DNC class
actions. That issue alone really should be decisive -- commonality
can never be achieved in these cases, outside of very narrow
circumstances where all numbers dialed are presumptively
residential in nature.
For callers and sellers, notice how critical it was that vendors
were vetted at the onboarding for TCPA compliance. Because the
vendors were representing and proving consent at the front end, the
Court credited that the seller was not just making illegal calls to
sell its product. Moreover, even if a few bad eggs slipped in there
would have to be a file by file review to determine who they were.
One note of caution, however, the Plaintiff's lawyers appeared to
have pigged out a bit in this case. They swung for the fences and
wanted a class of every call made by every "agent" regardless of
source. If they had dialed back their class and focused n
particular sources -- i.e. specific lead sources -- things might
have been different. For callers and sellers that means that you
need to carefully vet your lead sources and shut them off if you
suspect fraud at any point. [GN]
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Expert Discovery Ongoing in WCERS Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that expert discovery
is ongoing in the securities class action suit entitled, Washtenaw
County Employees' Retirement System v. Walgreen Co. et al., No.
1:15-cv-3187.
On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class
action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.
(Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System v. Walgreen Co. et
al., No. 1:15-cv-3187 (N.D. Ill.))
The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities
laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made
regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals.
A motion to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint filed on
August 17, 2015 was granted in part and denied in part on September
30, 2016.
The court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification on
March 29, 2018 and plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on
December 19, 2018.
A motion to dismiss the first amended complaint was granted in part
and denied in part on September 23, 2019.
Fact discovery has concluded and expert discovery is in progress.
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and
is based in Deerfield, Illinois.
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Rite Aid Shareholders Securities Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by purported Rite
Aid shareholders.
On December 11, 2017, purported Rite Aid shareholders filed an
amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania arising out
of transactions contemplated by the merger agreement between the
Company and Rite Aid.
The amended complaint alleged that the Company and certain of its
officers made false or misleading statements regarding the
transactions. The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on April 15, 2019.
The Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses, discovery
commenced, and the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
In October and December 2020, two separate purported Rite Aid
Shareholders filed lawsuits in the same court as the M.D. Pa.
action opting out of the class in the M.D. Pa. action making nearly
identical allegations as those in the M.D. Pa. action.
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and
is based in Deerfield, Illinois.
WALMART STORES: Lisowski's Bid to Remand Based on TIA Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CHRISTOPHER LISOWSKI, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated v. WALMART STORES, INC., t/d/b/a
WALMART, Case No. 2:20-cv-1729-NR (W.D. Pa.), the U.S. District
Court for the District of Pennsylvania denies the Plaintiff's
motion to remand based on the Tax Injunction Act and principles of
comity.
Mr. Lisowski sued Walmart in state court for conversion, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law. The complaint alleges that Walmart
improperly collected sales tax on two, 6-packs of "5-Hour Energy"
supplements purchased by Mr. Lisowski. He alleges that 5-Hour
Energy drinks are tax-exempt "Dietary Supplements and Substitutes"
under 61 Pa. Code Section 58.1. He further alleges that the
Pennsylvania Department of Revenue gave express notice that dietary
supplements and substitutes, in any form are exempt from tax.
On Nov. 12, 2020, Walmart removed the case to the Court under the
Class Action Fairness Act. Mr. Lisowski moved to remand, arguing
that remand is required by the Tax Injunction Act and related
principles of comity.
The Court disagrees, for the four reasons. First, the Tax
Injunction Act does not apply. The complaint does not seek an
injunction ordering the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or any other
taxing authority to suspend the collection of any tax. Nor could
it, because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is not a defendant
here.
Second, even if the TIA were to apply to a case involving two
private parties, the complaint does not seek an injunction that
would restrain the collection of a tax -- which is necessary to
trigger the TIA. Third, comity also does not apply. Comity, in the
tax context, serves to prevent federal court interference with the
assessment and collection of state taxes and to direct challenges
to tax collection toward adequate state remedies.
Fourth, even if the case were one in which comity principles would
apply, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to remand. In
applying (or attempting to apply) the somewhat ill-fitting
"confluence of factors," there is nothing unique, complex, or
particularly tax-centric about the case. Both sides concede that
the case doesn't implicate any complex tax-law issues. Finally,
whether in state or federal court, the remedies for any violations
can be fashioned in similar manners.
After weighing these factors, the Court concludes that there is not
enough to warrant setting aside a congressional command under CAFA
to take jurisdiction over the case.
For these reasons, the Court denies Mr. Lisowski's motion to remand
and retains jurisdiction over the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Jan. 7,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ra474e from
Leagle.com.
WESTBRAE NATURAL: New York Court Dismisses Barreto Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned
NATASHA BARRETO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WESTBRAE NATURAL, INC., Case No. 19-cv-9677 (PKC)
(S.D.N.Y.).
The Plaintiff brings the putative class action against Westbrae,
alleging that the label of the vanilla-flavored soymilk product
distributed and sold by Westbrae is deceptive and misleading.
Barreto's First Amended Complaint asserts claims under sections 349
and 350 of the New York General Business Law ("GBL"), negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, breach of express and implied warranty
and unjust enrichment. Westbrae now moves to dismiss the Complaint
under Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The front label of Westbrae's product describes it as "Vanilla
Soymilk" and the ingredient list discloses "Natural Vanilla Flavor
With Other Natural Flavors." The Complaint's core allegation is
that this labeling violates specific regulations of the Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA"). However, enforcement of FDA
regulations is reserved to the government, and for her claims to
survive she must allege a deceptive or misleading act or practice
and not merely a violation of a regulation. Barreto attempts to
plead claims by alleging that the labeling is deceptive and
misleading in misrepresenting the source of the product's vanilla
flavor as being derived exclusively or predominately from the
vanilla plant.
Vanilla is a common ingredient used to flavor food. The source of
the "natural vanilla" flavor is a plant, V. planifolia, which
produces the vanilla bean from which the natural vanilla flavor, or
vanilla extract, is derived. The main flavor component of vanilla
is vanillin. One of the law firm's representing Barreto secured a
Gas-Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry analysis ("GC-MS") of
Westbrae's product. Although the test detected vanillin, it did not
detect other marker compounds that are present in small
concentrations when vanillin is derived from natural vanilla.
Although the Complaint is equivocal about the presence of any
natural vanilla in the product, in briefing the motion to dismiss,
Barreto asserts that the Complaint alleges the product contains de
minimis vanilla. The GC-MS analysis also detected the flavor
enhancer maltol. Barreto contends that maltol is designated as a
synthetic flavoring substance in certain FDA regulations, a legal
conclusion with which Westbrae disagrees.
The Complaint alleges that Barreto relied on the alleged
misrepresentations when purchasing Westbrae's product and would not
have done so or would have paid less for the product had she known
the vast proportion of the vanilla flavor was not derived from
vanilla beans.
The Court concludes that the Complaint fails to plausibly allege
that the product's label would be likely to deceive or mislead a
reasonable consumer. In assessing the product's packaging as a
whole, a reasonable consumer would conclude that the soymilk has a
vanilla flavor and at least some of it is natural vanilla flavor.
There is no claim anywhere on the packaging that natural vanilla is
the predominant source of the vanilla flavor and the Complaint does
not adequately allege the presence of artificial flavors. The
Complaint also does not allege the soymilk fails to have a vanilla
taste or that the taste would be any different if it came
exclusively from natural vanilla.
District Judge P. Kevin Castel opines that Barreto also does not
plausibly allege that the added vanillin detected by the GS-MS
analysis was derived from artificial rather than natural sources.
Moreover, Barreto alleges that the GS-MS analysis detected the
substance maltol and that the substance is artificial. Her
complaint has not shown facts that would support the conclusion
that the flavor enhancer maltol is non-natural.
Because the Court concludes that the product's labeling would not
mislead a reasonable consumer, it will dismiss Barreto's claims
under Sections 349 and 350 of the GBL.
The Complaint also brings claims for negligent misrepresentation,
fraud, breach of express and implied warranty, and unjust
enrichment. Barreto's remaining claims are similarly premised on
the assertion that Westbrae's labeling is materially misleading for
reasons discussed in connection with her GBL claims. Because the
Court has already determined that Barreto has failed to allege that
the product's labeling would be likely to deceive or mislead a
reasonable consumer, these causes of actions are also dismissed,
Judge Castel ruled.
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint is granted. The Clerk is directed to terminate the
motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Jan. 7,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxgey62t from
Leagle.com.
WESTERN DIGITAL: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $7.75 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a $7.75 million settlement has wrapped up a
class action that accused disk drive maker Western Digital of
paying women less than men, after a California federal judge
greenlighted the pact and a $2.3 million payout for the lawyers who
brought the case. [GN]
WORLD TRIATHLON: Wins Summary Judgment; Ellenwood Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MIKAELA ELLENWOOD and JORGE CASANOVA v. WORLD
TRIATHLON CORP., COMPETITOR GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., and COMPETITOR
GROUP, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-1182-T-60AEP (M.D. Fla.), District
Judge Tom Barber grants the Defendants' converted motion for
summary judgment.
On Sept. 8, 2020, the "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint and Strike Jury Trial Demand" was filed. The
Plaintiffs filed their response in opposition on Sept. 22, 2020.
The Court held a hearing on Oct. 28, 2020, after which the
Defendants' motion to dismiss was converted to a motion for summary
judgment pursuant to Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Both parties filed supplemental memoranda, as permitted
by Rule 12(d), on Nov. 11, 2020.
The Defendants are in the business of hosting, managing,
sponsoring, and facilitating various running events across the
country and abroad. Plaintiffs Ellenwood and Casanova entered into
contracts, via the internet, for races scheduled to take place in
2020. Both Plaintiffs electronically executed contracts that
included various terms and were required to demonstrate their
assent to these terms by clicking fillable boxes.
Ms. Ellenwood, a resident of Denver, Colorado, paid $89 (plus a
$14.99 processing fee) to register for a Rock 'n' Roll Marathon
Series running event to take place in San Francisco on April 5,
2020. Mr. Casanova, a resident of Vallejo, California, paid $399.60
(plus a $29.60 processing fee) to register for a 2020 Ironman
Triathlon running event to be held in Santa Rosa, California, on
May 9, 2020. Both events were cancelled based on mandates from
government officials relating to the outbreak of COVID-19. The
Defendants have offered participants the opportunity to transfer
their registrations to future comparable races, but have otherwise
refused to refund any monies.
The Plaintiffs have brought the purported class action suit because
the Defendants have failed to provide refunds for those races. The
Defendants maintain that the contracts signed by the Plaintiffs
both contain identical "no-refund" provisions, allowing them to
reschedule the races in lieu of issuing refunds.
In their First Amended Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs
allege claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) unjust enrichment,
and (3) violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act. The Defendants moved to dismiss these claims, and
this motion, as previously stated, has been converted to a motion
for summary judgment.
After carefully reviewing the written contracts governing the
parties' relationships, the Court concludes that the Defendants'
position is well taken. Both contracts clearly and unambiguously
state that there will be "no refunds."
Judge Barber states that it is a very simple case. "No refunds"
means exactly what it says -- no refunds. Judge Barber explains
that Florida law is clear that courts are not permitted to rewrite
a contract or interfere with the freedom of contract or substitute
their judgment for that of the parties thereto in order to relieve
one of the parties from the apparent hardship of an improvident
bargain, citing Dear v. Q Club Hotel, 933 F.3d 1286, 1297 (11th
Cir. 2019). He holds that the "no refund" provisions at issue are
valid and enforceable and the failure to provide refunds in the
factual scenario alleged does not constitute a breach of the
parties' agreements.
Faced with clear and unambiguous "no refund" provisions, the
Plaintiffs have asserted various arguments in an attempt to
invalidate the very agreements upon which they base their breach of
contract claims. Judge Barber holds that none of these arguments
has merit. These include the arguments that the contracts lack
mutuality, rendering them illusory and legally void from formation,
and that the contracts at issue are unconscionable.
Judge Barber also opines, among other things, that under the facts
presented, the Plaintiffs' allegations, as a matter of law, do not
constitute a FDUTPA violation. As such, summary judgment in the
Defendants' favor is appropriate on the FDUTPA claim.
Accordingly, Judge Barber ruled:
(1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint and Strike Plaintiffs' Jury Trial Demand, which
was converted to a motion for summary judgment, is
granted;
(2) the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of
Defendants World Triathlon Corporation, Competitor Group
Holdings, Inc., and Competitor Group, Inc., and against
Plaintiffs Mikaela Ellenwood and Jorge Casanova, on all
counts of the First Amended Class Action Complaint; and
(3) the Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and
deadlines and thereafter close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 7, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2wapzkp from Leagle.com.
[*] Class Action Litigator Barbara Hart Joins Grant & Eisenhofer
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Thomas, writing for Reuters, reports that Grant & Eisenhofer
has added leading securities class action litigator Barbara Hart
from trial firm Lowey Dannenberg, where she served as president and
CEO.
Joining G&E as a director and a member of the firm's executive
committee is "an exciting third chapter for me," said Hart, who has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars in investor lawsuits.
[GN]
[*] Seyfarth Discusses Workplace Class Action Litigation Trends
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seyfarth Shaw LLP reports that the COVID-19 pandemic had a
significant impact on all aspects of life in 2020. Its impact
extended to the legal system in general and workplace class actions
in particular. The pandemic spiked class actions (of all varieties)
and litigation over all types of workplace issues. As the pandemic
took hold, the plaintiffs' bar retooled their class action theories
to match. Employers are apt to see these workplace class actions
expand and morph as businesses restart operations in the wake of
COVID-19.
As state and local governments responded to the COVID-19 threat,
many employers moved their employees to tele-work or work-from-home
arrangements, or laid off or furloughed workers, and many
businesses -- and courts -- shut down or postponed critical
operations.
The pace of court filings, however, did not match this trend as the
Plaintiffs' bar retooled their theories to match. During 2020,
COVID-19 gave rise to at least 1,005 workplace lawsuits, filed
across 47 states and 28 industries. As business operations reopen
in 2021, even more coronavirus-related lawsuits are expected in
2021.
As the following graphic demonstrates, the plaintiffs' bar focused
these lawsuits in traditionally employee-friendly jurisdictions, as
they filed 181, or 18%, of these suits in California, followed in
numbers by New Jersey (150), Florida (95), New York (68), and Ohio
(66).
Reflecting the creativity of the plaintiffs' bar, in the lawsuits
filed to date, plaintiffs have asserted 46 different issues or
theories of liability, with five primary theories as the key
drivers of COVID-19 workplace litigation, including: (1) alleged
failure to provide a safe working environment; (2) discrimination
claims, particularly relating to disability and age; (3) leave
claims under the FMLA and the patchwork of federal, state, and
local laws enacted in response to the pandemic; (4) retaliation and
whistleblower claims, often attached to either a workplace safety
or leave issue; and (5) wage & hour lawsuits arising out of the
pandemic.
The following graphic illustrates the breakdown by issue.
Understandably, in-house legal professionals overwhelmingly cite
workplace liability as the biggest legal risk they face related to
the global health crisis. The lawsuits were spread across a broad
array of industries, with highest numbers targeting healthcare and
business services, as illustrated by the following chart. Employers
of all industries and sizes, however, are continuing to ready
themselves for workplace litigation that they anticipate is still
in the pipeline, as the new theories developed in response to the
pandemic become part of the fabric of workplace litigation for
years to come.
We anticipate that the tide of workplace class action litigation
will continue to rise in several key areas such as discrimination
and workplace bias, wage & hour, as well as on the health & safety
front. Employers are apt to see these workplace class actions
expand and morph as businesses restart operations in 2021 in the
wake of COVID-19, particularly as courts roll out a patchwork quilt
of rulings.
These filings reflect the creativity of the plaintiffs' bar,
particularly in the workplace safety arena. The Occupational Safety
& Health Act ("OSHA") requires that employers provide a workplace
"free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to
cause death or serious physical harm." In the context of COVID-19,
the OSHA advised employers to follow guidelines from the CDC, such
as sanitizing surfaces and ensuring social distancing. Whereas
federal administrative guidance does not generally give rise to a
private cause of action, members of the plaintiffs' bar attempted
to shoehorn failures to comply into claims for public nuisance as
well as claims for breach of duty to protect the health and safety
of employees.
As lawsuits rolled in from employees who alleged that they were
"encouraged" to continue attending work, that they were prevented
from adequately washing hands or sanitizing workstations, and that
their employers' efforts fell short of providing protection of
their workers' health, courts issued a series of rulings as to
whether those alleging "failure to protect" can state a viable
claim, particularly if they did not contract the disease. A federal
court in Missouri in Rural Community Workers Alliance v. Smithfield
Foods, Inc., No. 20-CV-6063 (W.D. Mo. May 5, 2020), for instance,
granted a motion to dismiss claims that an employer failed to
protect employees at a meat processing plant, and declined to hear
the case pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine to allow the
OSHA to consider the issues. An Illinois state court, in Massey v.
McDonald's Corp., No. 2020-CH-04247 (Cir. Ct. Cook County June 3,
2020), by contrast, refused to toss accusations by a proposed class
of Chicago-based employees that their employer failed to do enough
to protect them during the ongoing pandemic. Further, a California
state court in United Farm Workers of America, et al. v. Foster
Poultry Farms, No. 20-CV-3605 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 23, 2020),
entered a tentative ruling approving a temporary restraining order
to require an employer to follow CDC guidelines to keep its plant
workers safe from COVID-19.
Despite the swell of filings, by the end of 2020, few cases raising
COVID-related issues had matured to the class certification stage.
As a result, few courts had considered whether the pandemic gave
rise to concerns that aided plaintiffs in clearing certification
hurdles, and the courts that considered such issues reached
different conclusions. On April 10, 2020, for instance, a court in
the Northern District of Illinois in Money v. Pritzker, No.
20-CV-02093 (N.D. Ill. April 10, 2020), declined to certify a class
of state inmates concerned about their risk of COVID-19 infection
because it found that each putative class member came with a unique
situation and the imperative of individualized determinations
rendered the case inappropriate for class treatment. On June 6,
2020, a court in the Southern District of Florida reached a
different result in Gayle v. Meade, No. 20-CV-21553 (S.D. Fla. June
6, 2020). Focusing on the threat of a heightened risk of severe
illness, despite the need for individualized assessment of each
detainee's vulnerabilities to COVID-19, the court ruled that
plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23's commonality requirement by pointing
to common conduct, including failure to implement adequate
precautionary measures and protocols, lack of access to hygiene
products, and lack of social distancing. Companies should
anticipate that, as employers continue to navigate the pandemic and
filings work their way through the court system, 2021 will bring
additional lawsuits and additional rulings on myriad issues that
shape future litigation. [GN]
[*] Seyfarth Releases Workplace Class Action Litigation Report
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seyfarth has released its 17th annual edition of the Workplace
Class Action Litigation Report, which is recognized as the nation's
most complete guide to workplace-related complex litigation. In its
largest edition ever, Seyfarth analyzed a record number of 1,548
class action rulings on a circuit-by-circuit and state-by-state
basis to identify key themes from 2020 and emerging litigation
trends facing U.S. companies in 2021.
Over the span of its 17 years, Seyfarth's Report has developed the
legal industry's most comprehensive class action database featuring
analyses of over 20,000 cases. Described as the "definitive source
of information on employment class action litigation" and a
resource that "no practitioner who deals with employment claims. .
. should be without" by Employment Compliance Magazine, Seyfarth's
Report is the sole compendium in the U.S. dedicated exclusively to
workplace class action litigation. This year's 850-page Report is
the "go-to" research and resource guide for businesses and their
corporate counsel facing complex litigation in the coming year.
"The pandemic's impact was felt in every aspect of life and in
every sector of the economy, creating a record number of workplace
class action rulings in 2020," said Seyfarth partner and author of
the 17th annual Report, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. "Despite the
COVID-19 pandemic, we also saw settlement values increase this year
for both the plaintiffs' bar and government enforcement litigation.
While the level of Federal enforcement litigation slowed in 2020,
employers should expect the new Biden Administration to reverse
course and gear up for aggressive litigation in 2021."
The Seyfarth Report details five key employment litigation trends
for corporations in 2021:
1. COVID-19 Impact - The pandemic spiked more class actions for all
types of workplace issues, with a record number of 1,548 rulings in
2020. As businesses return to the new normal, class actions
emanating from the pandemic will be with employers in 2021 and
beyond.
2. Change Is The New Normal - With a change from red to blue in the
White House, a likely expansion of workers' rights, increased
regulation of businesses, and aggressive enforcement of workplace
laws is apt to take place in the next four years. With that
platform, advocates for workers and labor are expected to ramp up
their activities on the workplace class action litigation front.
3. Increased Values Of Settlements In Class Actions -
Counter-intuitively, settlement numbers went up in the age of COVID
and plaintiffs' lawyers and government enforcement actions garnered
more money in 2020 than in 2019 -- with settlements in the
aggregate totaling over $1.5 billion in 2020. Many thought the
pandemic would depress the pace and size of settlements in the new
"cash is king" approach to the business cycle. Instead, workplace
class action litigation defied those odds and demonstrated that the
plaintiffs' bar converted case filings into significant settlement
numbers.
4. Government Enforcement Litigation Slowed - The DOL, OFCCP, and
the EEOC deemphasized their litigation enforcement programs and
brought less actions than ever before (94 lawsuits in 2020 as
compared to 144 in 2019). Yet, their settlement numbers were up (a
record amount of $535.4 million in 2020). Of the total amount
collected, litigation recoveries increased from $39.1 million in
2019 to $106 million in 2020, the highest in 16 years. This
approach is apt to change in a significant manner under the Biden
Administration and reach higher levels.
5. Wage & Hour Litigation Remains The Sweet Spot For The
Plaintiffs' Class Action Bar - Based on sheer volume and
statistical numbers, workers scored the most success in securing
certification of wage & hour class and collective actions in 2020
as compared to other areas of workplace law - and at the highest
level ever seen in the last two decades. Certification percentages
of wage & hour actions were 84% granted and 16% denied. This state
of affairs is expected to explode in 2021 with a more friendly DOL
that makes wage theft its enforcement priority and with minimum
wage increases in 25 states in 2021.
To view additional videos, charts, and data from the Workplace
Class Action Litigation Report please visit
www.workplaceclassactionreport.com, where you may also request a
copy. Available as a downloadable eBook, the Seyfarth Report is
fully searchable, compatible with all major devices, allows readers
to bookmark useful sections for easy future reference, and includes
a number of other features, such as note-taking, highlighting and
more.
About Seyfarth
With more than 900 lawyers across 17 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
provides advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to
clients worldwide. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Defends Exposure Claims at Oct. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation is still facing asbestos claims
related to its facilities and older vehicle models, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020.
The Company states, "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we
have been subject to a number of asbestos-related claims. In
general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have resulted
from asbestos exposure from component parts found in older
vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged presence of
asbestos in our facilities. In these claims, we are generally not
the sole defendant, and the claims name as defendants numerous
manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products allegedly
containing asbestos. We have strongly disputed these claims, and
it has been our policy to defend against them vigorously.
Historically, the actual damages paid out to claimants have not
been material in any year to our financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows. It is possible that the number of these
asbestos-related claims, and the costs for resolving them, could
become significant in the future."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/pIkWp1
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***